Global warming => economic disaster

[Kärnfysikern]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6096594.stm

Sir Nicholas Stern, a distinguished development economist and former chief economist at the World Bank, is not a man given to hyperbole.

Yet he says "our actions over the coming few decades could create risks of major disruption to economic and social activity, later in this century and in the next, on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the economic depression of the first half of the 20th Century".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6096084.stm

Tony Blair said the Stern Review showed that scientific evidence of global warming was "overwhelming" and its consequences "disastrous".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6098362.stm

Extreme weather could reduce global gross domestic product (GDP) by up to 1%

A two to three degrees Celsius rise in temperatures could reduce global economic output by 3%

If temperatures rise by five degrees Celsius, up to 10% of global output could be lost. The poorest countries would lose more than 10% of their output

In the worst case scenario global consumption per head would fall 20%

To stabilise at manageable levels, emissions would need to stabilise in the next 20 years and fall between 1% and 3% after that. This would cost 1% of GDP

[Kärnfysikern]

Great approach. No one cares about environmental issues, but if it will hurt the economy everyone will care.

[KeyMastur]

I"ll be dead by then. I don't care

[Flagg]

Great approach. No one cares about environmental issues, but if it will hurt the economy everyone will care.

It's been quite a large issue and talking point in England the last week or so Johan, of course lots of people have been complaining that it's just the Labour governments attempt at screwing us out of more money but I also agree it's about time we started getting taxed on this cause noone does give a shit about global warning.

[Flagg]

I"ll be dead by then. I don't care

Pefect example. This is why there are going to be "Green Taxes" now.

[KeyMastur]

Pefect example. This is why there are going to be "Green Taxes" now.

explain green tax please. i'm not much into economic stuff or environmental stuff for that matter

[Flagg]

I don't know if this will happen anywhere else but here (UK) Tony Blair and Gordon Brown want to start "Green Taxing"

WHere recycling is compulsory, possibility of cost of electricity shooting up hence encouraging people to switch off lights in unoccupied rooms and unplugging plugs to equipment not being used, increasing the cost of certain vehicles like 4 x 4's that use up more fuel and expend more pollution than other vehicles, etc. I've only caught snippets of this in the news so i'd have to read into a lil more but that's the basic jist of it.

[Flagg]

At the moment the richest nations in the world are responsible for a whopping 75% of all emissions. The cost of global warming could reach more than 3.86 TRILLION pounds a year (that's more than the cost of both World Wars put together!) if no action is taken. Britain is one of the few nations to meet its 2010 target and just accounts for 2 % of global emissions. Even if we halted all pollution the benefits would be wiped out by China in just two years.

I think Blair and Browns "Green Pledge" is a good thing, one of the few good things that they've actually done. It FORCES people to care about the envirnment, especially if it hits that persons wallet. It's a sorry state of affairs when we have to work on peoples ignorance and/or selfishness to do something about this obvious problem.

This is how much carbon we are responsible for and I believe that this is JUST in this country.

Two return flights from Heathrow to Athens: 2587 Kg

Motorist driving 10000 miles each year: 3600 Kg

Food and drink per person per year: 585 Kg

Electricity use of a house with average annual bill of £ 349.00: 1700 Kg

Gas use of a house with UK average bill of £539.00: 4900 Kg

Target use: 2500 Kg
Average use: 10963 Kg

[RA]

Thats what the whole global warming issue is for. Money!

Its so the rest of the world can further fleece American money

[RA]

I heard on the radio the other day that one of the top climatologists said global warming was hogwash and a ploy for money. Ill see if I can find an article on it

[Kärnfysikern]

I don't know if this will happen anywhere else but here (UK) Tony Blair and Gordon Brown want to start "Green Taxing"

WHere recycling is compulsory, possibility of cost of electricity shooting up hence encouraging people to switch off lights in unoccupied rooms and unplugging plugs to equipment not being used, increasing the cost of certain vehicles like 4 x 4's that use up more fuel and expend more pollution than other vehicles, etc. I've only caught snippets of this in the news so i'd have to read into a lil more but that's the basic jist of it.

We kind of have that in sweden. Higher taxes on environmentaly friendly things and lower taxes on environmentaly healthy products. One of the few(if not the only) good things the green party has managed to pull off in sweden. Everything else they want is shit.

[Kärnfysikern]

Thats what the whole global warming issue is for. Money!

Its so the rest of the world can further fleece American money

Fleece america? In what way. If anything right now america is profiting from the environmental attitude in europe since we are starting to regulate things you guys are not....

I dont se how america would be scammed out of any money. Even if global warming isnt true the polution on its own causes millions of premature deaths..

I heard on the radio the other day that one of the top climatologists said global warming was hogwash and a ploy for money. Ill see if I can find an article on it

In the begining of the 20th century alot of highly qualified professors of physics rejected relativity and quantum mechanics. Doesnt say much about the validity of those theories....

I dont se how it would be a ploy for money when no one realy profits from it. All the climatologist would be employed regardless of global warming or not, they would just research some other thing.

[Kärnfysikern]

I am as always undecided about global warming. But I think all carbon dioxide regulations are top notch because of the way its going to limit polution.

Fossile fuel is the cause of tremendous release of heavy metals and poisonous chemical compounds into the environment. The cost for the healthcare system associated with this is already staggering, but not so visible since its hard to pinpoint any particular case as beeing caused by the polution.

Maby the time has come when big buissness wont be able to slease their way around environmental regulations anymore.

[RA]

Fleece america? In what way. If anything right now america is profiting from the environmental attitude in europe since we are starting to regulate things you guys are not....

I dont se how america would be scammed out of any money. Even if global warming isnt true the polution on its own causes millions of premature deaths..


This "green" tax idea is going to have the U.N. chomping at the bit for money from us. Just watch...



In the begining of the 20th century alot of highly qualified professors of physics rejected relativity and quantum mechanics. Doesnt say much about the validity of those theories....

I dont se how it would be a ploy for money when no one realy profits from it. All the climatologist would be employed regardless of global warming or not, they would just research some other thing.

Yes, they would research other things but there is way more money when people are scared. Just think if the U.N. could use this as a justification to tax the entire world. How much money do you think they would be getting then?

[Kärnfysikern]

This "green" tax idea is going to have the U.N. chomping at the bit for money from us. Just watch...

Seems reasonable since US is the biggest poluter...Isnt it time the US and europe starts to take responsibility?
Even there even is a shadow of a doubt isnt it better to act than to wait and maby **** this place up even more than it is now?
Sooner or later we have to get rid of fossile fuels and this is just one big motivation for it, even if global warming turns out to be false we will benifit alot in every imaginable way from limiting fossile fuels.

Is money today worth more than clean air for your kids? I mean seriously think about it(you know Im not a environmentalist nut) There isnt one single spot on this planet that isnt polluted right now.

Its also big technological challange New tech=new jobs=new money.

Yes, they would research other things but there is way more money when people are scared. Just think if the U.N. could use this as a justification to tax the entire world. How much money do you think they would be getting then?

But to claim that the global warming theory is upheld by scientists because they want money is a bit far out. Most scientists are honest people and even if they where not such a tremendous lie or overexageration could not live on for so long. The scientific world is not conned that easily. When was the last time a major accepted scientific theory was falsified??

If its not true what are all those very clever people seeing in there research?

I dont mind the UN taxing the entire world if the money will be going to new technology and concrete plans. The change for me as a individual will be very small either way. Its not like the un will or can take 100$ out of my pocket each month.

[RA]

#1 Its hard to believe that China doesnt pollute more than us but I have not researched that.

#2 It sounds a bit nieve to think scientists will not buy into something that is theoretical at best for money.

#3 You saying you would pay the taxes for it makes me want to pull out all my hair and stomp around johan. We are not causing global warming

[Phreak101]

Taxes on emmisions = NO!

Tax BREAKS on environmental friendly products = YES!

[Kärnfysikern]

#1 Its hard to believe that China doesnt pollute more than us but I have not researched that.

#2 It sounds a bit nieve to think scientists will not buy into something that is theoretical at best for money.

#3 You saying you would pay the taxes for it makes me want to pull out all my hair and stomp around johan. We are not causing global warming

1. I dont know total, but per capita america is the unthreatened king of polution. I think you are the biggest single poluting country aswell but I am far from sure on that. Since america uses the most resources of any country it would not be far fetched to assume you pollute most. But europe and america are buying the shit that is produced in filthy ways in india and china. So even if we dont pollute in our own country, its our consumption that do pollute.

If I hire a killer or kill someone myself, I am still the one responsible for the dude dying.

2. Nope not naive, most scientists do not get into science for money. If they wanted money they would have become engineers.
I would defenetly not fudge any research I might do in the future in order to make more money. Also doing that would mean beeing banished from the scientific community. Scientists discovered cheating or manipulating are excluded forever, they will never be trusted again, never get any position at a university ect. It just isnt possible for a big theory to be based on manipulated data, it would get shot down before it takes off.


3. Well that is your claim and it is not share by the majority of experts ....What makes you so sure you are right and most of the experts dead wrong, even though they have worked with it for most of there lifes.

But you miss my point, global warming or not, fossile fuels are poluting the hell out of this planet and causing countless of premature deaths even in our countries that are the garden of eden compared to the industrial areas of india and china. I am more than willing to pay in order to reduce polution no doubt. Especialy when we clearly have the technology to replace fossile fuels, there just isnt any economic incentive right now. Goverments have to create it by taxing the fossile fuel industries to a slow death, fast enough for things to happen but slow enough to prevent economic disaster.

[RA]

Taxes on emmisions = NO!

Tax BREAKS on environmental friendly products = YES!

Yeah, I would go along with that

[Kärnfysikern]

Taxes on emmisions = NO!

Tax BREAKS on environmental friendly products = YES!

why not taxes on emmisions?

Will the big power companies give a shit about polution and emission unless they suffer economicaly from them? I mean we are talking about the same companies that can allow things like the bhopal disaster to happen because they save money on safety...

Will the car manufacturers give a shit about making cleaner cars unless the dirty cars become economical suicide?

[Phreak101]

why not taxes on emmisions?

Will the big power companies give a shit about polution and emission unless they suffer economicaly from them? I mean we are talking about the same companies that can allow things like the bhopal disaster to happen because they save money on safety...

Will the car manufacturers give a shit about making cleaner cars unless the dirty cars become economical suicide?

Because you are still assuming that we are the main cause of global warming. I find it unfair to tax companies who find a more economically viable way to make the world turn simply because it may be dirtier and/or cause more pollution than the cleaner alternative. What about the volcanic massive amounts of soot and pollution thrown into the air duirng the formation of the world, how is that any different than the carbon monoxide pumped out by cars and smokestacks?

[RA]

But you miss my point, global warming or not, fossile fuels are poluting the hell out of this planet and causing countless of premature deaths even in our countries that are the garden of eden compared to the industrial areas of india and china. I am more than willing to pay in order to reduce polution no doubt. Especialy when we clearly have the technology to replace fossile fuels, there just isnt any economic incentive right now. Goverments have to create it by taxing the fossile fuel industries to a slow death, fast enough for things to happen but slow enough to prevent economic disaster.

Right so who cares if they are cooking up a false "disaster" in the making if it is for the greater good. Hogwash bro. You dont like fossil fuels fine. Give very large tax incentives to car companies that are trying to perfect alternative fuels/technologies. Say you have to go 100 miles/ gallon in 5 years, 150 miles/gallon in 10 and so on to get huge tax incentives. That way you dont break the back of business in the process.

Im still not convinced of anything when it comes to global warming and yes I do believe scientists can be bought because we have this grey area and they like the money.

Plus ppl at the U.N. are salivating over the kind of money they could make off this when people throw up their hands and say "well we need a tax"

Ted Danson said in 1991 that in 10 years there would be no more fish in the sea. I didnt believe that horshit then either

[biglouie250]

Taxes on emmisions = NO!

Tax BREAKS on environmental friendly products = YES!

+ block grants for R&D into alternative means of power.

[Flagg]

Because you are still assuming that we are the main cause of global warming. I find it unfair to tax companies who find a more economically viable way to make the world turn simply because it may be dirtier and/or cause more pollution than the cleaner alternative. What about the volcanic massive amounts of soot and pollution thrown into the air duirng the formation of the world, how is that any different than the carbon monoxide pumped out by cars and smokestacks?

Well Phreak you have to bare in mind that when the world was forming there was no sentient life on the planet then so of course it was uninhabitabal then.

For the record I think China is the biggest problem to pollution but how the **** is this an "excuse" to fleece america? Cant people for once see beyond their own four walls? And what would people rather spend their money on? Stupid reality shows or funding pointless wars in shithole countries we can never beat?

Personally, even if it IS just hype or hyperbole, I'd rather we did do something about this now rather than 20 years time when water levels COULD rise and we're sitting there in our back gardens in a dingy going "hmm, maybe we shoulda done something about the environment"

Im with Johan 100% on this.

[RA]

Well Phreak you have to bare in mind that when the world was forming there was no sentient life on the planet then so of course it was uninhabitabal then.

For the record I think China is the biggest problem to pollution but how the **** is this an "excuse" to fleece america? Cant people for once see beyond their own four walls? And what would people rather spend their money on? Stupid reality shows or funding pointless wars in shithole countries we can never beat?

Personally, even if it IS just hype or hyperbole, I'd rather we did do something about this now rather than 20 years time when water levels COULD rise and we're sitting there in our back gardens in a dingy going "hmm, maybe we shoulda done something about the environment"

Im with Johan 100% on this.

Thats why Im glad people like you arent running the U.S.

[Flagg]

Thats why Im glad people like you arent running the U.S.

Shame people like you are though.

[Kärnfysikern]

Because you are still assuming that we are the main cause of global warming. I find it unfair to tax companies who find a more economically viable way to make the world turn simply because it may be dirtier and/or cause more pollution than the cleaner alternative. What about the volcanic massive amounts of soot and pollution thrown into the air duirng the formation of the world, how is that any different than the carbon monoxide pumped out by cars and smokestacks?

Unfair? Isnt it unfair by the company to polute the air you and me breath in order to make a bit more money? I mean is money more valuable than my health, your health, your kids health? I sure as hell wont trade my health in order for some company to push a dirty product. No way. Seriously when did money become that important?

Because of companies doing just that we have ruined ecosystems,
look at india where workers are waist deep in chlorine and acids when bleeching textiles and then all that crap is dumped right into the rivers and into lakes polluting the ground water so everyone in the area becomes poisioned. Our companies in europe and the US would do exactly the same if they where not regulated.

The european environmental agency estimate 370 000 people die prematurely in europe every year because of fossil fuels. You or me are not immune to that. Are 370 000 deaths worth it in order to allow companies to make a few extra bucks?

We need to make sure that environmentaly hostile products and processes are eliminated. The only means we can do so is by making them uneconomic. If it hurt some companies pocket I wont care. I care alot more about having good air to breath and make sure my future kids WONT be one of those premature deaths.

I dont quite se the point about prehistoric vulcano material. The world has been alot hotter in the past due to natural carbon dioxide thats the point. That doesnt mean I want to return to that state by artifical means. We know by studying prehistoric earth what extrem environment can look like. Times when the antartic was covered in vegitation. Our current civilisation could not hope to survive in that kind of environment. Humanity didnt evolve in that kind of environment.

Also the current artifical release of co2 exceeds the natural release of co2 from vulcanoes ect by orders of magnitude. Right now humanity far exceeds nature.

Right so who cares if they are cooking up a false "disaster" in the making if it is for the greater good. Hogwash bro. You dont like fossil fuels fine. Give very large tax incentives to car companies that are trying to perfect alternative fuels/technologies. Say you have to go 100 miles/ gallon in 5 years, 150 miles/gallon in 10 and so on to get huge tax incentives. That way you dont break the back of business in the process.

Im not saying that buisness should be taxed to the extent that they go bankcrupt outright. I am saying they should be taxed to the extent that they will over a period of maby 20-30 years abandon fossil fuels. At the same time make alternatives so packed with tax incentives that any fossil fuel company would be stupid not investing heavily into it.

Its also your unsported idea that they are cooking togheter a false disaster.

Im still not convinced of anything when it comes to global warming and yes I do believe scientists can be bought because we have this grey area and they like the money.

And when would you accept it as possible? Isnt 90% of experts enough? Do we need 100% of experts to agree?
Do you trust your doc when he hands you a prescription for some condition? I can assure you its possible to find experts that would say that particular medicine is snake oil. But you trust the majority of medical researchers right? There is far far more money in medicine so by that logic we should be deathly afraid of ever taking any medicine because every researcher would be bribed by medical companies to shut up about side effects. It happens yeah, but not to the extent that we can not trust the entire profession as a whole.

There is also the question who is buying the scientists? Big buisness certainly doesnt endorse global warming.

You can buy a few scientists yes, you can not buy a whole category of science. In your scenario about every textbook written on climat models would be false, the overwhelming majority of grad students in climatology would be in on a grand conspiracy to make a few extra bucks or to stupid to se how weak the evidence is.

If the evidence was so weak, how come all those tremendously bright people fall for it? There is no way you can covince me all those people are bought or stupid.

Why not simply trust the overwhelming majority of climatologists? Is it because they say things that if true will force you and me to change our lifes, give up some of our luxuries. Make start to take the buss or train instead of the car? My god!

Plus ppl at the U.N. are salivating over the kind of money they could make off this when people throw up their hands and say "well we need a tax"

It doesnt seem like anyone is even suggesting anything like that. The carbon market idea seems excelent, it is already on trial in europe.

Ted Danson said in 1991 that in 10 years there would be no more fish in the sea. I didnt believe that horshit then either

Alot of spieces of bigger fish are on the verge of beeing fished out. Several kind of tuna in particula. There are bans on fishing alot of spieces of fish because of this. Offcourse nobody cares and fish anyway.
http://www.physorg.com/news6538.html

In the baltic sea and gulf of bothnia for instance there is bans on fishing because the cod population is seriously threathened. So he might have been wrong on the date, but right in the prediction.

[Kärnfysikern]

Well Phreak you have to bare in mind that when the world was forming there was no sentient life on the planet then so of course it was uninhabitabal then.

For the record I think China is the biggest problem to pollution but how the **** is this an "excuse" to fleece america? Cant people for once see beyond their own four walls? And what would people rather spend their money on? Stupid reality shows or funding pointless wars in shithole countries we can never beat?

Personally, even if it IS just hype or hyperbole, I'd rather we did do something about this now rather than 20 years time when water levels COULD rise and we're sitting there in our back gardens in a dingy going "hmm, maybe we shoulda done something about the environment"

Im with Johan 100% on this.

Exacly. The risk is just to great. Worrying about spending 1% of GDP when the consequenses are so staggering. Its just unbelivable to me. We are after all talking about a sum that is far less than the global arms spending.

People seem to listen to scientists only when scientists have good things to say.
Jesus how long didnt it take until it was accepted that smoking is a major cause of lung cancer.

[RA]

#1 Thats the problem 90% do not agree. You are far exaggerating that. And I would say the people that say its horshit are just as "bright" as the ones claiming its real.

#2 It will not be long before the U.N. wants a green tax. Mark my words. It will be labeled "for the greater good" Just like the world wide gun ban they want.

#3 Interesting about the fish. Funny that I saw so many thousands when I was in the Atlantic

So do you know the cause of these fish example you used or is it just a good sound bite like good ol teddy. btw, were a couple years from 91

[RA]

Why are temperatures rising? The first chart nearby shows temperatures during the past 250 years, relative to the mean temperature for 1951-70. The same chart shows the length of the solar magnetic cycle during the same period. Close correlation between these two parameters--the shorter the solar cycle (and hence the more active the sun), the higher the temperature--demonstrates, as do other studies, that the gradual warming since the Little Ice Age and the large fluctuations during that warming have been caused by changes in solar activity.

[Kärnfysikern]

Why are temperatures rising? The first chart nearby shows temperatures during the past 250 years, relative to the mean temperature for 1951-70. The same chart shows the length of the solar magnetic cycle during the same period. Close correlation between these two parameters--the shorter the solar cycle (and hence the more active the sun), the higher the temperature--demonstrates, as do other studies, that the gradual warming since the Little Ice Age and the large fluctuations during that warming have been caused by changes in solar activity.

Well since I am no climatologist its not like I can counter any critique. But I did ask a professor at my university about the effect of variations in the solar constant(ammount of sunlight that hits the earth). According to him it can account for maby 1 to at most a few % of the variations in temperature we have seen. Remember the changes in the solar constant are quite small. That is why its called solar constant, people thought it was constant for a long time.

There is a thing called the milankovitch cycle with a 100 000 year period where the earth orbits eccentricity, tilt and precession effects the ammount of sunlight that reach us. For a long time it was thought to explain the ice age cycles but there was several periods of varying temperature that exclude the milankovitch cycle from beeing the main cause. So as far as I know the effect the variation of the solar constant has on climate is fairly well known.

I mean you have probably seen the chart comparing the number of pirates to the increase in temperature that allow us to conclude that there is a linear dependance betwen number of pirates and global avarage temperature. So just because 2 charts coincide doesnt mean they are directly related.

Either way the sun is heading into a period with low sun spot activity so in that case the coming 6-7 years or so should be colder than the last 6-7 years has been. Acctualy I think the time of the maximum solar activity was a few years ago already.

#1 Thats the problem 90% do not agree. You are far exaggerating that. And I would say the people that say its horshit are just as "bright" as the ones claiming its real.

I can only say what I have heard, according to the same professor as mentioned above it realy is a overwhelming majority. From what I have read in news it seem like it is correct. The anti global warming crowd probably attracts far more attention than the number of they warrant. Just like the intelligent design crown attracts alot of attention despite beeing less then a promille of biologists.

#
#2 It will not be long before the U.N. wants a green tax. Mark my words. It will be labeled "for the greater good" Just like the world wide gun ban they want.

It wouldnt happen, china, russia, india and US would not go along with it. I would welcome a serious UN regulating body on polution though. Im tired of knowing how filthy even the air in sweden realy is and knowing how much crap there is in all food.

I wonder what the next PCB or DDT shock will be.

#
#3 Interesting about the fish. Funny that I saw so many thousands when I was in the Atlantic

So do you know the cause of these fish example you used or is it just a good sound bite like good ol teddy. btw, were a couple years from 91

Cause?? Like in why they are going extinct? In the baltic sea it is overfishing and probably polution from the baltic states. The baltic sea is horribly dirty and in bad shape.

I thought you said he said it in 91, so his prediction would have been for 2001 that a bit closer in time.

[Kärnfysikern]

btw the ammount of sunlight acctualy reaching the earth has dramaticly decreased during the end of the 20th century. Global dimming because of all the polution is cutting down on it alot(alot more light is reflected right back into space). Worldwide its a avarage decrease of 4%.
So that effect acctualy lowers the severity of global warming.

If avarage temperature was that sensitive to variations in incoming sunlight those 4% reduction would have made todays climate much colder than the climate was 70-80 years ago. So its kind of falsified either way.

This effect btw is beyond a doubt true because the days after 9/11 they did messurements that showed those days where hotter because of the reduced polution in the united states during those days. Especialy with no planes flying around.

[RA]

Yeah but he said 10 years and we are 15 years out.


I think weve had this discussion before. I do believe in eventually working away from fossil fuels but doing it in a way that does not hurt industry. I believe the hard drive to do it now stems from the extreme environmental crowd that wants us to throw away all technology and sit around a campfire.

[RA]

btw the ammount of sunlight acctualy reaching the earth has dramaticly decreased during the end of the 20th century. Global dimming because of all the polution is cutting down on it alot(alot more light is reflected right back into space). Worldwide its a avarage decrease of 4%.
So that effect acctualy lowers the severity of global warming.

If avarage temperature was that sensitive to variations in incoming sunlight those 4% reduction would have made todays climate much colder than the climate was 70-80 years ago. So its kind of falsified either way.

This effect btw is beyond a doubt true because the days after 9/11 they did messurements that showed those days where hotter because of the reduced polution in the united states during those days. Especialy with no planes flying around.

So, we had some hot days after 9/11 and thats proof of what?

[Kärnfysikern]

Yeah but he said 10 years and we are 15 years out.


I think weve had this discussion before. I do believe in eventually working away from fossil fuels but doing it in a way that does not hurt industry. I believe the hard drive to do it now stems from the extreme environmental crowd that wants us to throw away all technology and sit around a campfire.

Well you know I aint one of them. The solution is offcourse nuclear power baby. If we start mass building now we will save industry and the environment

Some industries will inveitably(sp?) be hurt though. I mean oil companies should start preparing for there own death. But that doesnt matter if other industries grow. We just need politicians like Arnie that are prepared to start investing in a alternate infrastructure, prepare for a hydrogen economy perhaps.

[RA]

btw the ammount of sunlight acctualy reaching the earth has dramaticly decreased during the end of the 20th century. Global dimming because of all the polution is cutting down on it alot(alot more light is reflected right back into space). Worldwide its a avarage decrease of 4%.
So that effect acctualy lowers the severity of global warming.

That is to assume that it happens over night. Do you know if it warms/cools in 1,2,3,4,10 years?

[RA]

Well you know I aint one of them. The solution is offcourse nuclear power baby. If we start mass building now we will save industry and the environment

Some industries will inveitably(sp?) be hurt though. I mean oil companies should start preparing for there own death. But that doesnt matter if other industries grow. We just need politicians like Arnie that are prepared to start investing in a alternate infrastructure, prepare for a hydrogen economy perhaps.

Agree 100% Problem is you say Nuclear to any envionmentalist and you would have to bring out the shock padles to get em going again

[Kärnfysikern]

So, we had some hot days after 9/11 and thats proof of what?

Well he messured the difference betwen the hottest temp and coldest temp for each day. this difference has a very slow variation naturaly. Its pretty constant at a certain value.

But during those days after 9/11 the variation was much larger. There is no natural cause for such a change in variation.

When airlines started flying again ect the variation went back down to the regular.

So its determined without doubt that the reduction in polution during those days where the cause of the larger variation.

Later on messurements of sunlight hitting the surface has been examined and it has been shown worldwide that the ground gets 4% less sunlight than 50 years ago. This was first shown in israel if i remember right. The thing after 9/11 just started of the serious research into this.

After that they examined this more carefully in a chain of island where the northern islands get alot of blown in poluted asian air while the souther islands has clean air. It was shown that the northern islands got 4-5% less sunlight than the southern.

Scientist arent stupid

[Kärnfysikern]

Agree 100% Problem is you say Nuclear to any envionmentalist and you would have to bring out the shock padles to get em going again

**** em but they wont have a chooise for much longer. Especialy not now when big time environmentalist are jumping on the nuclear bandwagon. Heck even one of the founders of greenpeace endorse nuclear power and the founder of one of the biggest uk environmental groups.

Sooner or later we wont have to listen to those stupid ****s anymore!!

That is to assume that it happens over night. Do you know if it warms/cools in 1,2,3,4,10 years?

I dont, but the climatologist do

[RA]

Well he messured the difference betwen the hottest temp and coldest temp for each day. this difference has a very slow variation naturaly. Its pretty constant at a certain value.

But during those days after 9/11 the variation was much larger. There is no natural cause for such a change in variation.

When airlines started flying again ect the variation went back down to the regular.

So its determined without doubt that the reduction in polution during those days where the cause of the larger variation.

Later on messurements of sunlight hitting the surface has been examined and it has been shown worldwide that the ground gets 4% less sunlight than 50 years ago. This was first shown in israel if i remember right. The thing after 9/11 just started of the serious research into this.

After that they examined this more carefully in a chain of island where the northern islands get alot of blown in poluted asian air while the souther islands has clean air. It was shown that the northern islands got 4-5% less sunlight than the southern.

Scientist arent stupid

So your 100% certain that those variations had nothing to do with ocean currents?