Climate has changed rapidly in the past without humans. Climate research shows that average temperatures have increased many degrees centigrade in a single decade. The old believe that climate changed slowly in the past is long gone. It is amazing that some people still believe it.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/story.html
The no power part is important. Water is non-conductive but all the mineral salts dissolved in it and left behind are conductive. This is why you must clean the electronics and then dry them completely before applying power. As mentioned alcohol can be used with a good scrubbing but some things that dissolve in water do not dissolve in alcohol. So be sure and do a good inspection of both sides of any boards before applying power. Because of the way electronic equipment is assembled this may be very difficult to do. If you attempt this be sure to apply power in a well ventilated area because there may be smoke.
I work as an engineer in a TV station and it is painful to convince any journalist that they need to rewrite a science story. They look for pieces of information to make a compelling story. Unfortunately, they often do not have enough science background to connect the dots correctly. I understand your frustration I feel it every day. I have suggested that instead of a "science writer" they have a scientist working with a writer. Just as a positive note sometimes, they understand after I explain it to them and they get it right.
Thank you for your feed back. It's good to have some one support my point. I am so disturbed by people ignoring any data they choose by attacking the person instead of the data. It bothers me that Global warming alarmists use data like the Antarctic ice core data that goes back about 450,000 years to show that the earth is warming but ignore the fact that the earth has gone through many cycles of warming and cooling over this time period with no humans around. It is easy to see it is a cycle that is a natural part of the earth's long time climate. The last up swing started about 10,000 years ago. It very well could be we can do nothing to stop global warming and should be using our resources figuring out how to survive it and the next ice age. Our salvation, I hope, is that these trends are slow enough to give time for us to realize our mistake.
It really surprises me that you really believe that, for an example a scientist who studies marine biology and can see the changes in the marine environment and how it affects the life there can also understand the complex sciences of atmospheric gases and their interactions with all the other factors that affect long term climate change. The example that you used also has more to it. If a marine biologist determines that an environment is being harmed it must first be determined what is causing the harm like for example mercury. Once that is determined than a source of mercury must be found. It very well could be that the raw sewage source is bad but contains no mercury. Stopping the raw sewage my help other things but not the mercury pollution. The source of mercury must be found and it could be from another source that at first may seem benign. So for a scientist who studies impact says that man dumping co2 into the atmosphere is causing global warming and therefore hurting the environment or species they are studying is going beyond their expertise. All they can say is that warming of the region they are studying is causing harm. In other words good science is not that simple. That is what that part of the article is saying. The field that really has an expertise in global climatology is very small. So they are the only real scientists that can speak with authority on the cause of global warming.
I know that the biggest conflict when it comes to major political issues is the objectivity of any source of information. Most people pay little attention to the actual scientific evidence in the debate over global warming. The data is usually very complex and difficult to understand for some one not in the field. So they listen to the interpretation of the data. Unfortunately all research requires funding. So because people cannot attack the research data for lack of understanding they look at the source of funding to test the scientists objectivity. The problem with that is that despite what people think there are no neutral sources of funding. Researchers need to bring attention to their research to get more funding regardless of where they get it from. There are two basic ways to get attention. Nothing gets more attention then saying that great disasters will befall us if we don't pay attention to this particular research. The news media loves disasters and so do politicians because people tune in out of fear and fascination. So if you say your research shows a pending disaster you are very likely get funding from government sources. Also it sells books that make millions of dollars and gets politicians elected who then support the research that their constituents are worried about.
If you work for a large corporation you need to distinguish your self from your colleges by announcing something that benefits your employer in some way. If you are going to question the objectivity of a scientist who works for a large oil company why shouldn't you question the research of a scientist that works for the government or a large environmental organization they all have agendas. To just disregard data because of the source of funding will mean disregarding large amounts of information that may not be available from any other source. The only way I can see to get around this is to have a public that is highly educated in math and science which is one of the weaknesses in American society. Maybe there are other ways that others can see. But it bothers me that the bulk of the arguments here are based on scientific objectivity and not the data.
Please don't get me wrong but I don't think you understand what is being said here. Climate impact experts cannot say that CO2 is causing global warming the do not have the expertise to know the cause of temperature change. They can only state how increasing temperatures effect the enviroment or species they are studying. If they attribute the temperature change to CO2 or any other cause they are overstepping their expertise.This is an important difference regardless which side you are on.
Actually nano is in reference to how the material is made not about the final size of the material. The material is constructed using nanotechnology.This technology is often used to construct macro materials that are big enough to be used by hand. In this sense the term is used correctly.
We have 500,000,000 years of data from ice cores that indicate co2 levels have either no or the opposite effect on global temperatures. This data carries more weight then the short term data collected today that is based on the assumption that co2 increases global temperatures. It is assumed by many that because of the correlation between increasing levels of co2 and global temperatures that there is causation. There are many different mechanisms at work and which ones are at work in our atmosphere are difficult to determine over the short term. Thousands of years of data are required to make accurate predictions about global climate changes over the long term. Please keep in mind that greed and power can also be involved in the need to scare people into rash action. The following is a non-profit organization that puts data out that shows there is a legitimate other side.
Great to see someone else has read the Lensman series. So many good science predictions were made in his stories, such as matter to energy conversion and super conductors. At his time Astronomers thought our Galaxy was the whole universe so he thought two galaxies was plenty.
Unfortunately there are many political reasons to support the man caused green house effect. Every one knows that only things that frighten people get good coverage in the media. I have worked in the television business for 20 years and have watched the editing take place to emphasize the negative. The news director yelling "pump it up pump it up." Politicians know this too so they are saying in essence vote for me or you will die. This always gets good coverage by the media. This also affects scientists, they need funding and you get funding by bringing attention to your work. Not all or even most scientists support the man caused global warming effect. There is good evidence that even Mars is experiencing global warming. I am very sure that we are not the cause of that. Also keep in mind that the US lags behind the rest of the developed nations in the use of nuclear power. This makes it much easier for them to enforce the limiting of CO2 and other "green house gasses" without having a major effect on their economy.
Slashdot Mirror
I would suggest that all who believe in anthropogenic global warming read this. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VF0-3YS9862-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f5228771e5b2eb13a78e4d93d3f7a004
Climate has changed rapidly in the past without humans. Climate research shows that average temperatures have increased many degrees centigrade in a single decade. The old believe that climate changed slowly in the past is long gone. It is amazing that some people still believe it. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/story.html
The no power part is important. Water is non-conductive but all the mineral salts dissolved in it and left behind are conductive. This is why you must clean the electronics and then dry them completely before applying power. As mentioned alcohol can be used with a good scrubbing but some things that dissolve in water do not dissolve in alcohol. So be sure and do a good inspection of both sides of any boards before applying power. Because of the way electronic equipment is assembled this may be very difficult to do. If you attempt this be sure to apply power in a well ventilated area because there may be smoke.
Often even when they were wrong it was because science has advanced.
I work as an engineer in a TV station and it is painful to convince any journalist that they need to rewrite a science story. They look for pieces of information to make a compelling story. Unfortunately, they often do not have enough science background to connect the dots correctly. I understand your frustration I feel it every day. I have suggested that instead of a "science writer" they have a scientist working with a writer. Just as a positive note sometimes, they understand after I explain it to them and they get it right.
Thank you for your feed back. It's good to have some one support my point. I am so disturbed by people ignoring any data they choose by attacking the person instead of the data. It bothers me that Global warming alarmists use data like the Antarctic ice core data that goes back about 450,000 years to show that the earth is warming but ignore the fact that the earth has gone through many cycles of warming and cooling over this time period with no humans around. It is easy to see it is a cycle that is a natural part of the earth's long time climate. The last up swing started about 10,000 years ago. It very well could be we can do nothing to stop global warming and should be using our resources figuring out how to survive it and the next ice age. Our salvation, I hope, is that these trends are slow enough to give time for us to realize our mistake.
It really surprises me that you really believe that, for an example a scientist who studies marine biology and can see the changes in the marine environment and how it affects the life there can also understand the complex sciences of atmospheric gases and their interactions with all the other factors that affect long term climate change. The example that you used also has more to it. If a marine biologist determines that an environment is being harmed it must first be determined what is causing the harm like for example mercury. Once that is determined than a source of mercury must be found. It very well could be that the raw sewage source is bad but contains no mercury. Stopping the raw sewage my help other things but not the mercury pollution. The source of mercury must be found and it could be from another source that at first may seem benign. So for a scientist who studies impact says that man dumping co2 into the atmosphere is causing global warming and therefore hurting the environment or species they are studying is going beyond their expertise. All they can say is that warming of the region they are studying is causing harm. In other words good science is not that simple. That is what that part of the article is saying. The field that really has an expertise in global climatology is very small. So they are the only real scientists that can speak with authority on the cause of global warming.
I know that the biggest conflict when it comes to major political issues is the objectivity of any source of information. Most people pay little attention to the actual scientific evidence in the debate over global warming. The data is usually very complex and difficult to understand for some one not in the field. So they listen to the interpretation of the data. Unfortunately all research requires funding. So because people cannot attack the research data for lack of understanding they look at the source of funding to test the scientists objectivity. The problem with that is that despite what people think there are no neutral sources of funding. Researchers need to bring attention to their research to get more funding regardless of where they get it from. There are two basic ways to get attention. Nothing gets more attention then saying that great disasters will befall us if we don't pay attention to this particular research. The news media loves disasters and so do politicians because people tune in out of fear and fascination. So if you say your research shows a pending disaster you are very likely get funding from government sources. Also it sells books that make millions of dollars and gets politicians elected who then support the research that their constituents are worried about. If you work for a large corporation you need to distinguish your self from your colleges by announcing something that benefits your employer in some way. If you are going to question the objectivity of a scientist who works for a large oil company why shouldn't you question the research of a scientist that works for the government or a large environmental organization they all have agendas. To just disregard data because of the source of funding will mean disregarding large amounts of information that may not be available from any other source. The only way I can see to get around this is to have a public that is highly educated in math and science which is one of the weaknesses in American society. Maybe there are other ways that others can see. But it bothers me that the bulk of the arguments here are based on scientific objectivity and not the data.
Please don't get me wrong but I don't think you understand what is being said here. Climate impact experts cannot say that CO2 is causing global warming the do not have the expertise to know the cause of temperature change. They can only state how increasing temperatures effect the enviroment or species they are studying. If they attribute the temperature change to CO2 or any other cause they are overstepping their expertise.This is an important difference regardless which side you are on.
Actually nano is in reference to how the material is made not about the final size of the material. The material is constructed using nanotechnology.This technology is often used to construct macro materials that are big enough to be used by hand. In this sense the term is used correctly.
We have 500,000,000 years of data from ice cores that indicate co2 levels have either no or the opposite effect on global temperatures. This data carries more weight then the short term data collected today that is based on the assumption that co2 increases global temperatures. It is assumed by many that because of the correlation between increasing levels of co2 and global temperatures that there is causation. There are many different mechanisms at work and which ones are at work in our atmosphere are difficult to determine over the short term. Thousands of years of data are required to make accurate predictions about global climate changes over the long term. Please keep in mind that greed and power can also be involved in the need to scare people into rash action. The following is a non-profit organization that puts data out that shows there is a legitimate other side.
h tm
http://www.co2science.org/journal/2002/v5n19c2.
Great to see someone else has read the Lensman series. So many good science predictions were made in his stories, such as matter to energy conversion and super conductors. At his time Astronomers thought our Galaxy was the whole universe so he thought two galaxies was plenty.
No the NY Times did not yank the article it had time limited permission from the books publishers to display the quote.
So how is this a big improvement over hydroelectric power?
Yes there are many red herrings that distract us from other more important things that could really help mankind.
Unfortunately there are many political reasons to support the man caused green house effect. Every one knows that only things that frighten people get good coverage in the media. I have worked in the television business for 20 years and have watched the editing take place to emphasize the negative. The news director yelling "pump it up pump it up." Politicians know this too so they are saying in essence vote for me or you will die. This always gets good coverage by the media. This also affects scientists, they need funding and you get funding by bringing attention to your work. Not all or even most scientists support the man caused global warming effect. There is good evidence that even Mars is experiencing global warming. I am very sure that we are not the cause of that. Also keep in mind that the US lags behind the rest of the developed nations in the use of nuclear power. This makes it much easier for them to enforce the limiting of CO2 and other "green house gasses" without having a major effect on their economy.