So for my last post, I am going to be talking about my second green technology. That being Iron Man's power core. Now many of you may be thinking, is that really even possible? Well, that is one of the main questions which I wish to explore.
Iron Man's power core is called an Arc Reactor. An arc reactor is basically a nuclear fusion reactor. However, the science used in the movie and in cartoons portraying to the reactor is unfortunately incorrect. However, there are many different opinions about whether or not such a device could be made with some tweaking to the science behind it. For instance, look at the history of just the past century or so. We went from barely having cars to having all of the amazing technology there is today. So if we are able to tweak the science, then a portable nuclear fusion reactor such as the are reactor may one day become possible.
Why would this kind of power source be good?
To answer the above question, we have to look at nuclear fusion reactors. Fusion reactors are able to produce all of their energy with just hydrogen atoms and neutrons (the sun is just a big fusion reactor). This reaction would produce no greenhouse gases, and produce no waste that is long-lived enough to matter. So we would have a completely clean, environmentally friendly energy source that is unending.
Scientists expect to have fusion reactors up and running within the next 15 years and have them as a viable power source for the civilized world by the mid-21st century. Nuclear power truly could be the power source of the future.
Unfortunately, the technology to make a small nuclear reactor such as what iron man wears is still quite some time off, if we ever actually can achieve it. However, I think that the ability to make such power cores will one day be made possible (as long as global warming doesn't kill us all off first =p).
Other source:
http://www.ofes.fusion.doe.gov/whatisfusion.shtml
Sunday, November 8, 2009
A Last Post on the Debate
Today I read an article on global warming that talked about the debate going on between the two sides of whether global warming is mostly natural or mostly man made. The article takes both sides and tells about them in a mostly neutral way, which I really liked. So First of all I would like to tell about some interesting facts that I learned from this article that I didn't know about (which just goes to show that there is always more to learn). The first thing is that the earth's average temperature right now is about 60 degrees Fahrenheit (I had honestly not seen another one of my sources report this value, which is kind of surprising to me). The next piece of information that I found interesting, which adds great support to the natural side of the debate, is that between about 1945-1975, there was global cooling, not warming. I had previously thought that since the industrial revolution began over a century ago that temperature and continuously increased, but apparently, I was wrong. This means that even with all of the carbon dioxide emissions that were being added to the atmosphere, along with all the emissions that were already, there was some other force driving the temperature that was greater than the effects of the greenhouse gases. Now this article does not say what was the cause of the warming and cooling, but it does say that it could be because of natural process' such as changes in the sun's radiation.
Even with all of this evidence, there is still much debate going on amongst scientists about global warming. Some say that there is no way a natural force could change temperature as much as it has (which seems unlikely to me since the change is very small and I have seen much evidence for global warming being a natural process). Other's say that scientists are just blaming whatever is going on on humans. They said that in the cooling period of the 20th century, people kept proclaiming global cooling all over the place (which I have to assume is true since I was not alive then and have not seen anything against it), and now that they see a very slight change towards warming, they proclaim warming!
Also one last interesting fact from the articles is that the changing sizes of glaciers is unexplainable by scientists and goes against all models. If the models can not explain it, then either the models are just wrong completely, or there is some force (such as a natural force) that is affecting the temperature that we do not yet fully understand.
I found all of this information at CNN.com
Even with all of this evidence, there is still much debate going on amongst scientists about global warming. Some say that there is no way a natural force could change temperature as much as it has (which seems unlikely to me since the change is very small and I have seen much evidence for global warming being a natural process). Other's say that scientists are just blaming whatever is going on on humans. They said that in the cooling period of the 20th century, people kept proclaiming global cooling all over the place (which I have to assume is true since I was not alive then and have not seen anything against it), and now that they see a very slight change towards warming, they proclaim warming!
Also one last interesting fact from the articles is that the changing sizes of glaciers is unexplainable by scientists and goes against all models. If the models can not explain it, then either the models are just wrong completely, or there is some force (such as a natural force) that is affecting the temperature that we do not yet fully understand.
I found all of this information at CNN.com
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Links That I have Enjoyed Using!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Throughout my blog, there have been several of my links that have really shown to be helpful more than any of the other links and I have really been thankful that I was able to find and use them.
The first of these is Geocraft. This was one of the first sites that I found in my search for information about natural water vapor as a greenhouse gas. Not only did it tell me much of the information that I was looking for about water vapor, it also gave me a lot of information about other natural greenhouse gases. There were many charts, graphs, and explanations that showed me that more of the greenhouse gases are natural than I first thought. It's information was also very clear and easy to understand.
The next link was written by Dr. Spencer. This site taught me a lot more about natural carbon dioxide than I thought I knew and gave a lot more information than geocraft did on carbon dioxide specifically. Dr. Spencer gave explanations, charts, and graphs as well that, while not as clear as geocraft's information to the general public, were still very helpful to my learning. This site showed me that global warming can affect the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, instead of just the other way around. This was some amazing information that answered a previous question I had that was caused by Al Gore's slideshow, An Inconvenient truth. So all in all, this was a very useful link to me.
The next link that I found useful is from Daily Mail Online. This article introduced me to the idea that natural global warming is caused by a lot more than just water vapor. This turned out to be a great link which explained more about the little I had heard about the sun affecting global warming and showed me that it may be affecting global warming more than I had previously thought. I am glad to have found this because it was able to strengthen my argument that global warming is natural significantly by adding another natural cause and explaining the previous cycles and weather patterns that have existed throughout mankind's history.
Another useful and strong link was from NASA. One of the articles I found about studies on water vapor as a greenhouse gas was from the NASA.gov web site. So not only was I able to learn a lot from this site, it was also a very credible source. It emphasized the fact that water vapor is the worst greenhouse gas and taught me more about how it interacts with other greenhouse gases. I learned that water vapor increases the warming caused by other gases. So I was able to learn that water vapor may account for more of global warming than even I had thought!
Another small web page that I found useful was from a meteorologist. This meteorologist wrote about how carbon dioxide and water vapor are both greenhouse gases and even though carbon dioxide is a more efficient greenhouse gas, water vapor is much more important because of it's large quantity. This article showed me the idea that when weathermen make day to day forecasts, they do not even consider the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere when they make predictions. This is because the amount of difference that the carbon dioxide would make compared to the sun and to water vapor is so small that they weathermen know that it is not significant to count in their measurements.
The first of these is Geocraft. This was one of the first sites that I found in my search for information about natural water vapor as a greenhouse gas. Not only did it tell me much of the information that I was looking for about water vapor, it also gave me a lot of information about other natural greenhouse gases. There were many charts, graphs, and explanations that showed me that more of the greenhouse gases are natural than I first thought. It's information was also very clear and easy to understand.
The next link was written by Dr. Spencer. This site taught me a lot more about natural carbon dioxide than I thought I knew and gave a lot more information than geocraft did on carbon dioxide specifically. Dr. Spencer gave explanations, charts, and graphs as well that, while not as clear as geocraft's information to the general public, were still very helpful to my learning. This site showed me that global warming can affect the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, instead of just the other way around. This was some amazing information that answered a previous question I had that was caused by Al Gore's slideshow, An Inconvenient truth. So all in all, this was a very useful link to me.
The next link that I found useful is from Daily Mail Online. This article introduced me to the idea that natural global warming is caused by a lot more than just water vapor. This turned out to be a great link which explained more about the little I had heard about the sun affecting global warming and showed me that it may be affecting global warming more than I had previously thought. I am glad to have found this because it was able to strengthen my argument that global warming is natural significantly by adding another natural cause and explaining the previous cycles and weather patterns that have existed throughout mankind's history.
Another useful and strong link was from NASA. One of the articles I found about studies on water vapor as a greenhouse gas was from the NASA.gov web site. So not only was I able to learn a lot from this site, it was also a very credible source. It emphasized the fact that water vapor is the worst greenhouse gas and taught me more about how it interacts with other greenhouse gases. I learned that water vapor increases the warming caused by other gases. So I was able to learn that water vapor may account for more of global warming than even I had thought!
Another small web page that I found useful was from a meteorologist. This meteorologist wrote about how carbon dioxide and water vapor are both greenhouse gases and even though carbon dioxide is a more efficient greenhouse gas, water vapor is much more important because of it's large quantity. This article showed me the idea that when weathermen make day to day forecasts, they do not even consider the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere when they make predictions. This is because the amount of difference that the carbon dioxide would make compared to the sun and to water vapor is so small that they weathermen know that it is not significant to count in their measurements.
Implications of the Global Warming Debate
In the global warming debate, there are two main sides that I have talked about. They are the side who says global warming is man made and will cause the end of the world, and the side who says that global warming is a natural process (another side is though who say global warming does not exist but that side goes against all scientific evidence so I do not find it necessary to go into detail about it).
If this issue is not settled, then the main consequence will be that the people on both sides will have this divide between them which will cause there to be arguments and cause those on the two sides to not be able to work together. It will affect the whole modernized world because instead of the opposing sides being able to work together to advance technology and humanity, they will be spending more time trying to prove the other wrong and not help anyone near as much as they would working together.
If the two sides were able to come to a consensus, there could be many different consequences, some good, and some bad. The first side is if we come to a an agreement on global warming being natural. If we come to that agreement and are right, then we will be able to further technology and hopefully head in the right direction for humanity (assuming this doesn't cause a robot overlord takeover of the world). If we come to this same agreement but are wrong, well, when the effects of global warming really start to kick in, we will be screwed unless we have some kind of space colonies (this has happened in tv shows from multiple cultures).
If we come to the agreement that global warming is man made and are right, then hopefully we will be able to convince the world that we need to stop releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere so that the world does not end this way, and it will hopefully not end, but this will be hard to do because of the economic costs. If we come to the agreement that global warming is man made and are wrong, then we will probably end up once again trying to convince the world governments to spend billions of dollars on green technology, only this time it will be mostly wasted except for preserving natural resources.
As for the consequences of global warming itself, no one actually knows. The possibilities seem endless. There could be an ice age, or just a smaller cooling period, or the destruction of the northern hemisphere. My personal hope is that the debate will be won by the side who says it is man made, and that we will be right.
If this issue is not settled, then the main consequence will be that the people on both sides will have this divide between them which will cause there to be arguments and cause those on the two sides to not be able to work together. It will affect the whole modernized world because instead of the opposing sides being able to work together to advance technology and humanity, they will be spending more time trying to prove the other wrong and not help anyone near as much as they would working together.
If the two sides were able to come to a consensus, there could be many different consequences, some good, and some bad. The first side is if we come to a an agreement on global warming being natural. If we come to that agreement and are right, then we will be able to further technology and hopefully head in the right direction for humanity (assuming this doesn't cause a robot overlord takeover of the world). If we come to this same agreement but are wrong, well, when the effects of global warming really start to kick in, we will be screwed unless we have some kind of space colonies (this has happened in tv shows from multiple cultures).
If we come to the agreement that global warming is man made and are right, then hopefully we will be able to convince the world that we need to stop releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere so that the world does not end this way, and it will hopefully not end, but this will be hard to do because of the economic costs. If we come to the agreement that global warming is man made and are wrong, then we will probably end up once again trying to convince the world governments to spend billions of dollars on green technology, only this time it will be mostly wasted except for preserving natural resources.
As for the consequences of global warming itself, no one actually knows. The possibilities seem endless. There could be an ice age, or just a smaller cooling period, or the destruction of the northern hemisphere. My personal hope is that the debate will be won by the side who says it is man made, and that we will be right.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
How Have I Grown in my Knowledge of Global Warming?
I have to say, I have gotten a lot more out of this project that I originally thought that I would. I came into this project thinking that I already knew most of what I end up posting about for global warming and that I would not really learn much more. I was more wrong that I could have known. While the central theme of what I knew about global warming still remains true, I have learned so much more information that has been added to what I already knew and fits perfectly with it. For example, I learned that not only is most of the worst greenhouse gas, water vapor, in the atmosphere because of natural processes, but that most of most of the greenhouse gases naturally occur geocraft. Not only that, but I have learned that natural processes can account for a lot of the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere! Dr. Spencer
Other ideas that I have expanded on include possible effects of global warming. This includes hurricanes (Hurricane Info), false extreme ideas about effects of global warming (on The Day After Tomorrow), drought, flooding, higher sea levels (More effects), and even the possibility of another little ice age (Little Ice Age info).
I have also learned more about how common sense can help us to understand more about how water vapor can affect global warming so much (Water Vapor Affecting Humidity).
Also in my research, I have found more varying and weird arguments made by those who blame global warming on mankind. Some have tried to argue that the other greenhouse gases have an effect on how much effect water vapor has on global warming, but their theories lack evidence and have some seemingly obvious flaws (skeptical science).
Also, I have learned that there is even more variance in temerature than I originally thought there was (variance), and that there has always been a lot of variance (variance pic).
I have also learned that greenhouse gases are not the only thing that affects temperature (solar effects).
So in my research, I have learned a lot more about global warming that I had thought there was to know. I have also changed the way I think about global warming to a more open way of accepting new ideas because there are a lot of pieces to the puzzle of global warming out there, and it takes more than just one article to put the pieces together.
Other ideas that I have expanded on include possible effects of global warming. This includes hurricanes (Hurricane Info), false extreme ideas about effects of global warming (on The Day After Tomorrow), drought, flooding, higher sea levels (More effects), and even the possibility of another little ice age (Little Ice Age info).
I have also learned more about how common sense can help us to understand more about how water vapor can affect global warming so much (Water Vapor Affecting Humidity).
Also in my research, I have found more varying and weird arguments made by those who blame global warming on mankind. Some have tried to argue that the other greenhouse gases have an effect on how much effect water vapor has on global warming, but their theories lack evidence and have some seemingly obvious flaws (skeptical science).
Also, I have learned that there is even more variance in temerature than I originally thought there was (variance), and that there has always been a lot of variance (variance pic).
I have also learned that greenhouse gases are not the only thing that affects temperature (solar effects).
So in my research, I have learned a lot more about global warming that I had thought there was to know. I have also changed the way I think about global warming to a more open way of accepting new ideas because there are a lot of pieces to the puzzle of global warming out there, and it takes more than just one article to put the pieces together.
More on Natural Global Warming
In my research, I have found some new interesting information about natural global warming that agrees with previous information I have seen. There are two main things that I have found that I would like to add.
One is about exaggerations about the effects of warming and about the effects of cooling in the earth's natural cycles. For starters, I would like to restate that global warming is just one part of a bigger cycle of warming and cooling. According to this link, the past "two thousand years of global history" shows us that warming periods have been good for mankind. For example, it was the cold period called the little ice age that brought about the deaths of so many people in the middle ages. Also in general cooling periods have killed approximately twice as many people as warming periods.
The other is another possible cause of global warming, changes is solar variation. One climate physicist, Mr. Singer, says that all of our climate change can "be explained by the Sun's activity." Apparently, the number of cosmic rays that hit the earth affect the number of clouds that will reflect heat back into space which amplifies variations in the intensity of the sun's rays. While I have not seen evidence for everything Mr. Singer has said, I have also read in several other places about variations in the sun being able to affect global warming. So I think that it is safe to say that global warming is at least partially affected by variances in the sun's rays.
One is about exaggerations about the effects of warming and about the effects of cooling in the earth's natural cycles. For starters, I would like to restate that global warming is just one part of a bigger cycle of warming and cooling. According to this link, the past "two thousand years of global history" shows us that warming periods have been good for mankind. For example, it was the cold period called the little ice age that brought about the deaths of so many people in the middle ages. Also in general cooling periods have killed approximately twice as many people as warming periods.
The other is another possible cause of global warming, changes is solar variation. One climate physicist, Mr. Singer, says that all of our climate change can "be explained by the Sun's activity." Apparently, the number of cosmic rays that hit the earth affect the number of clouds that will reflect heat back into space which amplifies variations in the intensity of the sun's rays. While I have not seen evidence for everything Mr. Singer has said, I have also read in several other places about variations in the sun being able to affect global warming. So I think that it is safe to say that global warming is at least partially affected by variances in the sun's rays.
Class Links
The first blog that I have enjoyed reading is http://supertechblogger.blogspot.com/ .
This blog is about super weapons and super defenses that our government is currently developing in order to keep up with the other countries in the world and stay a world power. I find this very interesting, especially since the author has promised an article about the future invention of mobile suits like Gundams which I love. This blog also allows us to look at the future of weapons and the direction that wars may be headed in in the future. The author has also mentioned how super weapons may help lead to world peace. I hope that he is right about it leading to world peace instead of world destruction. This blog is definitely worth going to for anyone who is interesting in where the future of military is heading.
The next blog that I have kept up with is http://medicaltech-medtech.blogspot.com/ .
I find this blog interesting because it shows many different technologies for medical purposes that are being developed that need funding in order to be fully developed and completed. I was amazed by some of the technology that we are already building and I am in full support that these medical technologies should receive as much funding as needed. I am also curious about reading more of his blog and future blogs to find out even more about this technology. Our current technology is more advanced now than I thought it would be in years. This blog is great for anyone who is interested in cool technology or anyone who believes that the ill and/or disabled should get help, because they now can.
The last blog that I will mention here belongs to my fellow global warming blogger Igreen at http://igreen13.blogspot.com/ .
One of the first things that I liked about Igreen was her willingness to change her preconceived notions about global warming that I showed her were wrong. I had already known from previous studies that there was a lot of false information out there and she could use some help. In her blog, she has discussed much about global warming from a different but still good perspective than I have. So for anyone interested in my blog, hers would also be good to go to to fund out more information about global warming. One of the main qualities of her blog that I like is how I can tell in her posts how she has an earnest desire for everyone to go green. I too think that going green is important, because it will cause less pollution and save our natural resources from being depleted to nothing. So for anyone who cares about the environment, IGreen's blog is a great place to go.
This blog is about super weapons and super defenses that our government is currently developing in order to keep up with the other countries in the world and stay a world power. I find this very interesting, especially since the author has promised an article about the future invention of mobile suits like Gundams which I love. This blog also allows us to look at the future of weapons and the direction that wars may be headed in in the future. The author has also mentioned how super weapons may help lead to world peace. I hope that he is right about it leading to world peace instead of world destruction. This blog is definitely worth going to for anyone who is interesting in where the future of military is heading.
The next blog that I have kept up with is http://medicaltech-medtech.blogspot.com/ .
I find this blog interesting because it shows many different technologies for medical purposes that are being developed that need funding in order to be fully developed and completed. I was amazed by some of the technology that we are already building and I am in full support that these medical technologies should receive as much funding as needed. I am also curious about reading more of his blog and future blogs to find out even more about this technology. Our current technology is more advanced now than I thought it would be in years. This blog is great for anyone who is interested in cool technology or anyone who believes that the ill and/or disabled should get help, because they now can.
The last blog that I will mention here belongs to my fellow global warming blogger Igreen at http://igreen13.blogspot.com/ .
One of the first things that I liked about Igreen was her willingness to change her preconceived notions about global warming that I showed her were wrong. I had already known from previous studies that there was a lot of false information out there and she could use some help. In her blog, she has discussed much about global warming from a different but still good perspective than I have. So for anyone interested in my blog, hers would also be good to go to to fund out more information about global warming. One of the main qualities of her blog that I like is how I can tell in her posts how she has an earnest desire for everyone to go green. I too think that going green is important, because it will cause less pollution and save our natural resources from being depleted to nothing. So for anyone who cares about the environment, IGreen's blog is a great place to go.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
The Day After Tomorrow
In the debate about global warming, both members of the opposing sides on whether or not global warming is man made tend to exagerate their points and in the man made case the consequences. One such example is the movie, The Day After Tomorrow. The events of this movie were pure fiction. Now while it is true that the makers of the movies admitted that what happened in the movie is unrealistic, I would still like to explain why it was an unrealistic.
The main plot of the film is a disaster occurs that affects the whole bothern hemisphere, covering it all in ice essentially causing an ice age. The whole event happens very quickly and is caused by global warming. The first sign that the main character sees of this is a tsunami covering all of New York City in freezing cold water which later turns to snow and ice. This is the first unrealistic part of the movie. A tsunami could not be caused by global warming. The events that could cause a tsunami are an earthquake, landslide and possibly meteor crash in the ocean if it were to hit right and was a big enough meteor.
The next unrealistic event is the three part giant storm that begins to cover the northern hemisphere. For starters, the instant freezing that happened to anything contained within defies the laws of thermodynamics. Also the causing of such a gigantic three part storm in itself is just total nonsense. This confuses climate change with weather that goes far beyond the extremes. So in other words, a ginormous ice storm could not be caused by global warming.
So if anyone has watched or will watch this movie, keep in mind that it is unrealistic, along with many of the similar extremist ideas about the consequences of global warming.
p.s. I actually did enjoy watching the movie. It was well made as long as you keep in mind that it is fiction.
source:
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/tdat_review.html
The main plot of the film is a disaster occurs that affects the whole bothern hemisphere, covering it all in ice essentially causing an ice age. The whole event happens very quickly and is caused by global warming. The first sign that the main character sees of this is a tsunami covering all of New York City in freezing cold water which later turns to snow and ice. This is the first unrealistic part of the movie. A tsunami could not be caused by global warming. The events that could cause a tsunami are an earthquake, landslide and possibly meteor crash in the ocean if it were to hit right and was a big enough meteor.
The next unrealistic event is the three part giant storm that begins to cover the northern hemisphere. For starters, the instant freezing that happened to anything contained within defies the laws of thermodynamics. Also the causing of such a gigantic three part storm in itself is just total nonsense. This confuses climate change with weather that goes far beyond the extremes. So in other words, a ginormous ice storm could not be caused by global warming.
So if anyone has watched or will watch this movie, keep in mind that it is unrealistic, along with many of the similar extremist ideas about the consequences of global warming.
p.s. I actually did enjoy watching the movie. It was well made as long as you keep in mind that it is fiction.
source:
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/tdat_review.html
Hurricanes - caused by global warming?
One of the biggest "pieces of evidence" I have heard from those who say global warming is man made is that the number of natural disasters such as hurricanes has been increasing over the past few decades. So my question is, does a slight temperature change really affect what causes a hurricane or not?
Well to answer this question, we first must look at what causes a hurricane to form. A hurricane is formed when a low pressure system travels over a warm body of water, normally in the tropics. So it would make sense that warmer temperature would increase the chance of a hurricane forming, since it happens over warm waters; and in fact it probably does increase the chance slightly.
However, this brings up another question. Why don't hurricanes form even more often than they do if this is all they need to form? Well, the hurricanes will only form when the heat is there long enough to build up to be strong enough to cause a hurricane. Usually, most of the heat in the areas is carried away by the wind shear of storms, but when there is little wind shear to blow away the heat, it is allowed to build up, and later cause a hurricane. So it doesn't matter how warm the water is (to a reasonable point); if the heat is not allowed to build up, no hurricane will be able to form.
Also, according to what Mr. Hosler (founding member of the EPA) told me three years ago when I interviewed him, there were so many conditions that had to be met for a hurricane to form that he doubted the idea that an increase in temperature would affect the chance of hurricanes at all.
So to conclude, the conditions for hurricanes to form are so great in number, such as lot's of heat being able to build up, that it is unlikely that the increased number of hurricanes is affected much if at all by increased global temperature.
sources used:
http://www.macmillanmh.com/socialstudies/2003-5/hurricanekatrina/hurricaneformation.html
http://www.weatherquestions.com/What_causes_hurricanes.htm
My interview three years ago with Charles Hosler
Well to answer this question, we first must look at what causes a hurricane to form. A hurricane is formed when a low pressure system travels over a warm body of water, normally in the tropics. So it would make sense that warmer temperature would increase the chance of a hurricane forming, since it happens over warm waters; and in fact it probably does increase the chance slightly.
However, this brings up another question. Why don't hurricanes form even more often than they do if this is all they need to form? Well, the hurricanes will only form when the heat is there long enough to build up to be strong enough to cause a hurricane. Usually, most of the heat in the areas is carried away by the wind shear of storms, but when there is little wind shear to blow away the heat, it is allowed to build up, and later cause a hurricane. So it doesn't matter how warm the water is (to a reasonable point); if the heat is not allowed to build up, no hurricane will be able to form.
Also, according to what Mr. Hosler (founding member of the EPA) told me three years ago when I interviewed him, there were so many conditions that had to be met for a hurricane to form that he doubted the idea that an increase in temperature would affect the chance of hurricanes at all.
So to conclude, the conditions for hurricanes to form are so great in number, such as lot's of heat being able to build up, that it is unlikely that the increased number of hurricanes is affected much if at all by increased global temperature.
sources used:
http://www.macmillanmh.com/socialstudies/2003-5/hurricanekatrina/hurricaneformation.html
http://www.weatherquestions.com/What_causes_hurricanes.htm
My interview three years ago with Charles Hosler
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Theory Post
One of the biggest issues with global warming is whether it is manmade or is it a natural process. What I have found to be the main reason for this debate is that most of the time, those who talk about global warming completely leave the natural data out of their lectures and speeches. Since this has happened, and so many peoples minds have already been influenced to side with the side of global warming being manmade without even considering the natural side, it may be impossible to have this debate come to an end. Those who know the truth, that global warming is a natural process, are not going to go along with something they know is not true; and those who believe that it is manmade already have that idea so stuck into their minds that it will be hard to convince them otherwise. However, the best solution I think that we could come up with is to just do everything we can to get the truth of the matter out there. It may not work and some people will probably reject it, but it is the best chance we have. Many have already tried to do so.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html
http://epa.gov/climatechange/kids/gw.html
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html
http://epa.gov/climatechange/kids/gw.html
Natural Carbon Dioxide
As I touched on in my analogy post, most of the carob dioxide in the atmosphere is natural. Now I would like to take the time to expand on that idea and show some interesting information I found about the natural amount being increased. After all, carbon dioxide is the most talked about greenhouse gas, so I think I should talk about it some more too.
Thinking back to when I watched An Inconvenient Truth, I have noticed one part of Al Gore’s power point that does not make too much sense to me according to what scientists say about global warming. This was his graph that showed that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has always been changing at the same rate as temperature (at least over the hundreds of thousands of years the scientists claim to have data on). However, my question is, how did the amount of CO2 change so much without human intervention? Well, in my search for more information about natural carbon dioxide, I ran upon a new source of information, a climatologist named Dr. Roy Spencer. In one of his articles online, he talks about how an increase in temperature can cause an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. This would explain my question to Al Gore’s graph. The carbon dioxide followed so closely because the environment is causing it to increase. As you can see in the following graph, there is a lot of natural variance in the amount of carbon dioxide that greatly varies from the variance of human emissions. 
Now this next graph (which I know is really hard to understand) shows that carbon dioxide increases tend to follow behind temperature increases, especially since the maximum correlation of the rate of change of carbon dioxide to temperature is at zero.
Now I know that this seems surprising, it was a surprising find for me too. However, this claim does make sense to me. It seems to fit greatly with the data. I found this information at http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/increasing-atmospheric-co2-manmade%E2%80%A6or-natural/
I hope you all find it interesting.
Analysis
Global Warming is one of the biggest issues in the world today. The media and politicians have talked about it often, trying to "teach" the general public about it (An Inconvenient Truth). However, many important details are left out of what is generally taught about global warming that portrays it in an incorrect way (http://www.john-daly.com/cooling.htm).
One of the most known politicians who talks about global warming is Al Gore. All he seems to talk about in his power point on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth, is about how carbon dioxide is going to cause the downfall of the earth if we do not stop it. However, this is not the case. While global warming is happening, and could possibly have some devastating effects on the world, it is mostly a completely natural process.
The main cause of global warming is the worst greenhouse gas, water vapor. While carbon dioxide is the second worst gas, water vapor makes up for the majority of gases that affect global warming (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html). Think of how weathermen make day to day forecasts. They do not use the levels of carbon dioxide in the air to make predictions because the levels are insignificant, however they do use the levels of water vapor because water vapor levels are significant. Even NASA has recently taken measurements that show water vapor as adding to the greenhouse effect is higher than all other greenhouse gases and that water vapor can add to the effect caused by other greenhouse gases (http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html
). For example, take a desert (the hot ones, not the cold ones for this example). A desert is very hot during the day, and very cold at night. Why is this? Well deserts have very low precipitation, and therefore have very little moisture, or water vapor, in their air. Since deserts are lacking in water vapor and clouds, there is no moisture to hold in the heat that the sun emits, so this heat quickly escapes at night and the desert becomes really cold.
Also, if you look at graphs of global warming over time plotted with a time line of hundreds of thousands of years, you can see that the earth has been warming and cooling constantly in the past, and we are just now at the top of the warm side.
One funny thing is that after the posting of that graph on the site I got it from, the author is telling about how our peak is not constant with temperature when it should be. However, the peak on the last side appears on the graph to be the absolute most constant peak of all the high warm periods.
Now we all know that the closer to the equator you are, the warmer you are. Well look at this graph of the world's distribution of water vapor.
As you can clearly see, the closer you get to the equator, the higher the concentration of water vapor is. Coincidence? I think not! It is common sense for anyone who experiences humidity that increased water vapor in the air increases temperature and help hold that heat in.
Also about carbon dioxide, most of it is natural (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html).
As you can see in this chart, the majority of carbon dioxide is natural. Adding even more to the fact that global warming is natural.
In my research, I have found those who would say that carbon dioxide heats up the earth just enough to add to the amount of water vapor through causing more evaporation (http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm). While this may be true, it seems much more logical to me that the worst greenhouse gas, water vapor, is what would cause there to be more evaporation. So I do not believe these arguments to be true or justified, and I have seen absolutely no evidence for this claim (even some who have made this claim say it is impossible to get a measurement on the effect of carbon dioxide on water vapor, seems fishy to me).
One other recent fact that I have found is that there is that even though there is a general trend in increasing temperature, there is still a lot of variance in temperature. This month on October 16th Washington D.C. experienced its coldest October 16th in 138 years (http://www.globalwarming.org/). So even though global warming is happening, there are still plenty of cold days out there that are colder than previous temperatures, meaning that there is only a slight amount of warming happening for the natural variance to cover such a thing as the coldest day in 138 years since the natural variance is less than a tenth of a degree (http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5142&page=21).
However, in my research, there are still so many people who say that global warming is caused by man. Why this is I am not really sure. However, I do know that it is many of those saying this is the media and politicians (e.g. Al Gore). So what should we trust? Media and Politicians, or science and common sense?
So is there anything we can do to prevent climate change? Probably not since it is a natural process, and even if we could the end effects could be devastating considering what we would have to do to the earth to stop it.
Even though we cannot stop climate change, there are some things that it could affect that deserves to be mentioned. Many of the supposed effects include extreme weather (e.g. hurricanes), increased drought and flooding, higher sea levels, and perhaps worst of all a potential ice age. So if there ends up being a way in which we can stop catastrophes, I say we go for it.
So as I have shown, global warming is a natural process, caused mostly by natural greenhouse gases.
sources:
http://geography.about.com/library/faq/blqzcolddesert.htm
An Inconvenient Truth - Al Gore
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://pub.uvm.dk/2003/learnersguide/images/lg5x44x1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://pub.uvm.dk/2003/learnersguide/html/chapter03.htm&usg=__tWG7OfNVFTuRhRwmp3UNF_kIYdE=&h=227&w=339&sz=39&hl=en&start=232&um=1&tbnid=JL8-sNsiyVcJeM:&tbnh=80&tbnw=119&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dworld%2Btemperatures%2Bover%2Bthousands%2Bof%2Byears%26ndsp%3D21%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN%26start%3D231%26um%3D1
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/mockler.html
http://www.john-daly.com/cooling.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html
http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/155/
http://www.slate.com/id/2182564/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming
http://ezinearticles.com/?Negative-Effects-of-Global-Warming&id=557033
http://www.oppapers.com/essays/Negative-Effects-Global-Warming/142541
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0130-11.htm
http://www.globalwarming.org/
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html
http://epa.gov/climatechange/kids/gw.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5142&page=21
0 comments
One of the most known politicians who talks about global warming is Al Gore. All he seems to talk about in his power point on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth, is about how carbon dioxide is going to cause the downfall of the earth if we do not stop it. However, this is not the case. While global warming is happening, and could possibly have some devastating effects on the world, it is mostly a completely natural process.
The main cause of global warming is the worst greenhouse gas, water vapor. While carbon dioxide is the second worst gas, water vapor makes up for the majority of gases that affect global warming (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html). Think of how weathermen make day to day forecasts. They do not use the levels of carbon dioxide in the air to make predictions because the levels are insignificant, however they do use the levels of water vapor because water vapor levels are significant. Even NASA has recently taken measurements that show water vapor as adding to the greenhouse effect is higher than all other greenhouse gases and that water vapor can add to the effect caused by other greenhouse gases (http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html
). For example, take a desert (the hot ones, not the cold ones for this example). A desert is very hot during the day, and very cold at night. Why is this? Well deserts have very low precipitation, and therefore have very little moisture, or water vapor, in their air. Since deserts are lacking in water vapor and clouds, there is no moisture to hold in the heat that the sun emits, so this heat quickly escapes at night and the desert becomes really cold.
Also, if you look at graphs of global warming over time plotted with a time line of hundreds of thousands of years, you can see that the earth has been warming and cooling constantly in the past, and we are just now at the top of the warm side.
One funny thing is that after the posting of that graph on the site I got it from, the author is telling about how our peak is not constant with temperature when it should be. However, the peak on the last side appears on the graph to be the absolute most constant peak of all the high warm periods.
Now we all know that the closer to the equator you are, the warmer you are. Well look at this graph of the world's distribution of water vapor.
As you can clearly see, the closer you get to the equator, the higher the concentration of water vapor is. Coincidence? I think not! It is common sense for anyone who experiences humidity that increased water vapor in the air increases temperature and help hold that heat in.
Also about carbon dioxide, most of it is natural (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html).
As you can see in this chart, the majority of carbon dioxide is natural. Adding even more to the fact that global warming is natural.
In my research, I have found those who would say that carbon dioxide heats up the earth just enough to add to the amount of water vapor through causing more evaporation (http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm). While this may be true, it seems much more logical to me that the worst greenhouse gas, water vapor, is what would cause there to be more evaporation. So I do not believe these arguments to be true or justified, and I have seen absolutely no evidence for this claim (even some who have made this claim say it is impossible to get a measurement on the effect of carbon dioxide on water vapor, seems fishy to me).
One other recent fact that I have found is that there is that even though there is a general trend in increasing temperature, there is still a lot of variance in temperature. This month on October 16th Washington D.C. experienced its coldest October 16th in 138 years (http://www.globalwarming.org/). So even though global warming is happening, there are still plenty of cold days out there that are colder than previous temperatures, meaning that there is only a slight amount of warming happening for the natural variance to cover such a thing as the coldest day in 138 years since the natural variance is less than a tenth of a degree (http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5142&page=21).
However, in my research, there are still so many people who say that global warming is caused by man. Why this is I am not really sure. However, I do know that it is many of those saying this is the media and politicians (e.g. Al Gore). So what should we trust? Media and Politicians, or science and common sense?
So is there anything we can do to prevent climate change? Probably not since it is a natural process, and even if we could the end effects could be devastating considering what we would have to do to the earth to stop it.
Even though we cannot stop climate change, there are some things that it could affect that deserves to be mentioned. Many of the supposed effects include extreme weather (e.g. hurricanes), increased drought and flooding, higher sea levels, and perhaps worst of all a potential ice age. So if there ends up being a way in which we can stop catastrophes, I say we go for it.
So as I have shown, global warming is a natural process, caused mostly by natural greenhouse gases.
sources:
http://geography.about.com/library/faq/blqzcolddesert.htm
An Inconvenient Truth - Al Gore
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://pub.uvm.dk/2003/learnersguide/images/lg5x44x1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://pub.uvm.dk/2003/learnersguide/html/chapter03.htm&usg=__tWG7OfNVFTuRhRwmp3UNF_kIYdE=&h=227&w=339&sz=39&hl=en&start=232&um=1&tbnid=JL8-sNsiyVcJeM:&tbnh=80&tbnw=119&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dworld%2Btemperatures%2Bover%2Bthousands%2Bof%2Byears%26ndsp%3D21%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN%26start%3D231%26um%3D1
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/mockler.html
http://www.john-daly.com/cooling.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html
http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/155/
http://www.slate.com/id/2182564/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming
http://ezinearticles.com/?Negative-Effects-of-Global-Warming&id=557033
http://www.oppapers.com/essays/Negative-Effects-Global-Warming/142541
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0130-11.htm
http://www.globalwarming.org/
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html
http://epa.gov/climatechange/kids/gw.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5142&page=21
Are We in for a Little Ice Age?
One interesting fact that I learned three years ago about global warming is that it can actually increase the chance of there being a global cooling period, known as a little ice age. However, before I did not really understand this at all honestly. I wrote about it in my paper without the least bit of true understanding. However, I have recently found how this type of event could occur.
First of all, to understand how global warming could cause a little ice age, we first need to look at how the little ice age could happen. One way that an ice age could happen is by the ocean currents being distorted or destroyed, mainly the Gulf Stream. The Gulf stream is part of what keeps North America and Europe nice and toasty. So without if the current is destroyed, there will be a great decrease in temperature.
So how does global warming affect this? Well by melting the polar ice caps, cold freshwater is let in to the ocean. If this change reached the Gulf Stream, the changes of temperature and concentration of the salt water in the current is expected to distort the current. If this happens then one of the things keeping us warm will change, probably for the worst (as in making us cold). The affects could do anything from a full on ice age to another little ice age as what happened from around the 14th to 19th centuries. Personally I think the little ice age is more probable, if either is to happen at all, but I don't think it will be anything that we won't be able to manage.
So as for my title question, the answer is maybe. At this point such an event is impossible to predict. However, it remains a possibility.
Sources used:
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0130-11.htm
4 comments
First of all, to understand how global warming could cause a little ice age, we first need to look at how the little ice age could happen. One way that an ice age could happen is by the ocean currents being distorted or destroyed, mainly the Gulf Stream. The Gulf stream is part of what keeps North America and Europe nice and toasty. So without if the current is destroyed, there will be a great decrease in temperature.
So how does global warming affect this? Well by melting the polar ice caps, cold freshwater is let in to the ocean. If this change reached the Gulf Stream, the changes of temperature and concentration of the salt water in the current is expected to distort the current. If this happens then one of the things keeping us warm will change, probably for the worst (as in making us cold). The affects could do anything from a full on ice age to another little ice age as what happened from around the 14th to 19th centuries. Personally I think the little ice age is more probable, if either is to happen at all, but I don't think it will be anything that we won't be able to manage.
So as for my title question, the answer is maybe. At this point such an event is impossible to predict. However, it remains a possibility.
Sources used:
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0130-11.htm
Some Thoughts on Hydrogen Cars
Well as I said in the title, I would be talking about green technologies in my posts here on the blog, and the first one that has caught my interest is Hydrogen Cars. Hydrogen Cars have had lots of critiques over the years about whether or not we could make then, and how expensive they would be.
As for whether or not it is possible to build hydrogen cars, the clear answer now is that it is possible. So this is no longer an issue to discuss about hydrogen cars.
However, there are two main issues I would like to discuss.
The first of these is price. As far as how expensive the cars would be, they would be really expensive, both to make and to fuel and even fuel cells if those were to be used instead of the hydrogen combustion engines. Some of the estimates that I saw end up being about 50,000 dollars more than normal cars and then there is the price of fuel. However, with fuel cells, there is talk that mass production of the cars could drastically reduce price, which makes sense according to economic theory. One estimate showed that a certain hydrogen fueled truck with fuel cells could be sold for about $20,000 bucks. That's not too bad when compared to our current prices; it is much better than a $50,000 difference.
The second issue is about the main by product of hydrogen cars, water vapor. Some of you may be thinking at this point (and I did too) that since water vapor is a worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, hydrogen cars may cause global warming more than normal cars do. However some research on this showed that to be false. For one thing, water vapor is actually also a by product of normal cars and supposedly not much more is emitted by hydrogen cars than by normal cars. So because of the added carbon dioxide emissions in normal cars, they most likely do emit more greenhouse gas than hydrogen cars and definitely cause more pollution.
So to conclude, I think that hydrogen cars will be an efficient green technology if the day does come where they are easily affordable.
source:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4563676/
2 comments
As for whether or not it is possible to build hydrogen cars, the clear answer now is that it is possible. So this is no longer an issue to discuss about hydrogen cars.
However, there are two main issues I would like to discuss.
The first of these is price. As far as how expensive the cars would be, they would be really expensive, both to make and to fuel and even fuel cells if those were to be used instead of the hydrogen combustion engines. Some of the estimates that I saw end up being about 50,000 dollars more than normal cars and then there is the price of fuel. However, with fuel cells, there is talk that mass production of the cars could drastically reduce price, which makes sense according to economic theory. One estimate showed that a certain hydrogen fueled truck with fuel cells could be sold for about $20,000 bucks. That's not too bad when compared to our current prices; it is much better than a $50,000 difference.
The second issue is about the main by product of hydrogen cars, water vapor. Some of you may be thinking at this point (and I did too) that since water vapor is a worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, hydrogen cars may cause global warming more than normal cars do. However some research on this showed that to be false. For one thing, water vapor is actually also a by product of normal cars and supposedly not much more is emitted by hydrogen cars than by normal cars. So because of the added carbon dioxide emissions in normal cars, they most likely do emit more greenhouse gas than hydrogen cars and definitely cause more pollution.
So to conclude, I think that hydrogen cars will be an efficient green technology if the day does come where they are easily affordable.
source:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4563676/
Water Vapor and Greenhouse Gases
As I said in my introduction, Water Vapor causes more Global Warming than any of the other greenhouse gases. I first heard this fact from a founder of the Environmental Protection Agency. Since then, whenever I have searched for conformation on this, I have seen that any website that is willing to mention water vapor as a greenhouse gas, since it seems like some poeple *cough* Al Gore *cough* do not even mention in their strives to convince people of the effects of Carbon Dioxide. These same sources also show that the vast majority of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (as well as almost every other greenhouse gas) is there by natural causes.
Now there are also those people who say that more and more water is being evaporated into the atmosphere because of increased temperatures made by the greenhouse gases man is emiting and therefore increasing the amount of water vapor and the effects of it in the atmosphere. However, if water vapor is the worst of the greenhouse gases by such a landslide of being 95%, then does it not make sense that water vapor itself contributes to much of the increasing amount of water vapor in the atmosphere? Basically, water vapor itself is causing an increased amount of water vapor more than other greenhouse gases. While I have yet to find a source that agrees with this idea of mine (and i will continue to search for one) it makes sense to me and I cannot think of a way that it is wrong.
Here are my sources where I found information concerning this:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/glossary.html#Global_warming
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
Now there are also those people who say that more and more water is being evaporated into the atmosphere because of increased temperatures made by the greenhouse gases man is emiting and therefore increasing the amount of water vapor and the effects of it in the atmosphere. However, if water vapor is the worst of the greenhouse gases by such a landslide of being 95%, then does it not make sense that water vapor itself contributes to much of the increasing amount of water vapor in the atmosphere? Basically, water vapor itself is causing an increased amount of water vapor more than other greenhouse gases. While I have yet to find a source that agrees with this idea of mine (and i will continue to search for one) it makes sense to me and I cannot think of a way that it is wrong.
Here are my sources where I found information concerning this:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/glossary.html#Global_warming
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
An Introduction (reposting)
Global Warming is an issue we hear much about in the news. Is it a big deal? Or is it not really important? This debate goes on in the world. Some people worry that global warming will cause the end of the world like it did in the movie The Day After Tomorrow. If the end of the world is coming, well, the whole world needs to be aware and do something to stop this.
Three years ago, I did a research paper on global warming. I started out using sources that showed the same mainstream information that most people know about with carbon dioxide being the main cause and how it is put there. However, after I had written that version of my paper I interviewed one of the founders of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Charles Hosler, over the phone. After I got off the phone with him I was utterly shocked at what he had told me. Everything that I had been taught in schools about global warming was now shown to me as a lie. I had to do more research on this. Looking at a few more interviews I did with other knowledgeable people that I knew, and researching the internet, I found that what Mr. Hosler had told me seemed to be true. I then had to trash my original paper and start over from scratch.
So now you are probably thinking “What was it that he found that changed his views so much.” Well, what I found was that global warming is a COMPLETELY NATURAL PROCESS. One of the first things Mr. Hosler told me was that ninety-five percent of greenhouse gases were water vapor.
To some, this may seem unbelievable. Thinking that most of what we have been told about global warming is a lie. If some random stranger had come up to me and said that, there is no way I would have believed it. However, a founder of the EPA was quite convincing. So I hope that this blog will be looked on with an open mind while I once again explore the depths of global warming.
Three years ago, I did a research paper on global warming. I started out using sources that showed the same mainstream information that most people know about with carbon dioxide being the main cause and how it is put there. However, after I had written that version of my paper I interviewed one of the founders of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Charles Hosler, over the phone. After I got off the phone with him I was utterly shocked at what he had told me. Everything that I had been taught in schools about global warming was now shown to me as a lie. I had to do more research on this. Looking at a few more interviews I did with other knowledgeable people that I knew, and researching the internet, I found that what Mr. Hosler had told me seemed to be true. I then had to trash my original paper and start over from scratch.
So now you are probably thinking “What was it that he found that changed his views so much.” Well, what I found was that global warming is a COMPLETELY NATURAL PROCESS. One of the first things Mr. Hosler told me was that ninety-five percent of greenhouse gases were water vapor.
To some, this may seem unbelievable. Thinking that most of what we have been told about global warming is a lie. If some random stranger had come up to me and said that, there is no way I would have believed it. However, a founder of the EPA was quite convincing. So I hope that this blog will be looked on with an open mind while I once again explore the depths of global warming.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
