lens vs. image sensors in digital photgraphy

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by aniramca, Dec 9, 2006.

  1. Well, this can get into a very long debate. But there are several
    key facts, and one fundamental concept which you stated:
    The fact is that we ARE MESSING WITH IT by pumping an excessive
    amount of CO2 and other gases into the atmosphere.
    That is pollution, and there is ample evidence that
    air pollution is having an effect, both increasing the greenhouse
    effect (absorption by greenhouse gases) and decreasing it
    (aerosol scattering at higher altitudes, called inverse greenhouse
    effect). Such effects are at work on other planets and moons
    (e.g. Venus, Mars, Titan), and the basics are well understood.
    What isn't understood is the magnitude at fine scale of effects
    and counter effects and how they interplay with small
    perturbations to the system. But as the injection continues
    the signal will become stronger, and nothing the data so far
    indicates is saying that the trend is good.

    The global change research is not junk science like so many nut cases
    want everyone to believe when they don't understand it themselves
    and don't want to admit it. Terrestrial global change science
    is very complex, but regardless of the complexity, we humans
    are injecting an unprecedented amount of CO2 into the atmosphere,
    and polluting it with aerosol pollution.

    Question, what is the most important greenhouse gas on Earth,
    and more important than all other cases by about a factor
    of 8 in terms of greenhouse warming?

    The answer is part of the problems I personally have with global
    change models and predictions, but regardless, the trends are
    disturbing enough that we should in my opinion curtail the injection
    of pollutants into our environment. And even if you ignore these
    facts, another fact is that oil is a finite resource that will
    someday run out. By changing to renewable resources, we reduce
    air pollution, and reduce man-produced greenhouse gases.
    We need to STOP MESSING WITH THE SYSTEM. Changing to renewable
    resources will spur new businesses too and help the economy.

    And how will this help photography? Better light for those
    grand landscapes: less air pollution, and you can still
    photograph a glacier. ;-)

    These opinions are my own as a practicing planetary scientist
    and not those of my employer.

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Dec 21, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. Hi J. Clarke,
    Human intervention in climatology has not "been going on for a long time" as
    you say. Humans have only had the capability to intervene for the past two
    hundred years or so, not even a blink of an eye in the existence of humans
    on this planet. We could even stretch that period back about a millenia or
    so, but it would still not count for much. Shouldn't we also figure out
    what our messing with the climate _is_ doing and figure _that_ out before we
    continue doing things we have _no_ idea what are going to cause in the
    future?

    For better or worse, the Earth is the only place we have. We have the
    capability to ruin it, but we should also have the intelligence not to.
    Please look at the graph again. The peak happened _10,000_ years ago at the
    end of last ice age. "Stabilization" due to human activities can only reach
    to the beginning of the industrial age, perhaps at most 1,000 years back.
    This stabilization has nothing to do with human activities. If you look at
    the graph you will see that CO2 and temperature are very clearly
    intertwined. What do you see at the very, very right of the graph? Where
    is the CO2 line? It is higher than it has ever been in the past half a
    million years. _THAT_ is what human activities are doing and _THAT_ is what
    the planet is responding to. The mean temperature in the past 10,000 years
    looks to be about 0 degrees C. The CO2 line is flatter than the temperature
    line, but during the cold periods it's about 1 degree value under the
    temperature and in the hot periods it's about 5 degree values under the
    temperature. Now the CO2 level is at 5 degrees so based on the values on
    the graph the planet has about 5 more degrees to catch up.

    Quoting from that page:

    "If CO2 has increased over the past 150 years as much as it normally
    increases over thousands of years leading up to an interglacial phase (about
    80 ppmv), then we could expect as much as a corresponding 10-12C increase in
    temperature. But if half the historical temperature increases have been due
    to orbital forcing and other factors, then we should expect an increase of
    "only" about 5-6C, or 9-11F."
     
    Arnor Baldvinsson, Dec 21, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. aniramca

    J. Clarke Guest

    So you're saying that the temperature trend that the ice cores say goes
    back 10,000 years is not a result of human activity? In that case you're
    pretty much admitting that global warming is junk science.
    What we should do is not pass a bunch of laws and adopt a bunch of social
    policies when we have no idea what the outcome will be.
    That's fine. But ending the activities that the do-gooders think are
    going to ruin it may very well ruin it beyond their wildest imaginings.
    So, once again you're admitting that global warming is junk science.
    Assuming that that is in fact the result of human activity, please
    explain why preventing another period of glaciation is a bad thing.
    What of it?
     
    J. Clarke, Dec 21, 2006
  4. aniramca

    smb Guest


    Cute. And when someone doesn't know the difference between "your" and
    "you're," they should be taken seriously?

    OT, but all I'm saying is that global warming, if it is indeed
    occurring, is a natural thing. There have been swings in climate
    throughout the planet's history. We're just now coming out of what
    was called the "little ice age." The planet has been warmer than it
    is now, as it has been cooler in the past. Scientists do not
    universally agree on what is happening, nor on what is actually
    causing it. How is it that we all of a sudden know that humans are
    to blame, when climate cycles have been going on for eons? The famous
    "hockey stick" chart that Gore has in his Powerpoint presentation has
    been disputed by some scientists as being bad interpretation of data.

    My original comment is about Al Gore, who is a career politician. His
    father was a career politician. Politicians, by nature, tell people
    what they want to hear. Al Gore is no scientist, but he is a good
    spokesman for those who think they sky is falling. That's all. Twenty
    years ago he could have been just as good a spokesman for the
    scientists who were warning us that global cooling was just around the
    corner.

    Al Gore is also full of angst at having lost the election that he
    thought was his by default. George Bush doesn't share Gore's views on
    global warming. Gore has made a career out of trying to discredit the
    man he lost to on all sorts of policy issues, from the environment to
    Iraq. Take what he says with a big grain of salt.

    Steve
     
    smb, Dec 21, 2006
  5. aniramca

    smb Guest

    Scott, I'm not disputing this. I've said that a "better" camera can
    give you pictures with better technical quality. That's a given. But
    that doesn't mean the photos are better unless your criteria for a
    good photo is limited to one which is sharper, etc. But it is still
    the photographer who is 100% responsible for the content, which is the
    more important thing. Factor in the technical aspects, which the
    camera brings to the table, and that's where the guestimate of 90/10
    comes from. Maybe another way to say it is that the success of a
    photograph is 90% content and 10% mundane things like focus, exposure,
    etc.

    It's still about the right tools for the job. Some can't capture some
    types of images. A "better" camera can give you more flexibility in
    the types of images you can make. That is probably why you say that
    everybody you know does a better job with a better camera. But it's
    still the person behind the camera that is responsible for the
    results.

    It's also true that even a "lesser" camera can give wonderful results
    under certain conditions.

    You're still not giving yourself the credit you deserve. Does the
    dslr know when to trip the shutter? Does the dslr know where to focus
    if you don't tell it? Does the dslr compose the picture? Does the
    dslr know when to use exposure compensation under difficult lighting
    conditions? Does the dslr anticipate the action for you? Does the
    dslr set the ISO? Does the dslr automatically set the optimum focal
    length on the zoom lens? Does the dslr move you to the best angle to
    remove a distracting background from the subject?

    No, of course not. But the answer is that the dslr probably makes all
    the above easier for you to do. It's a more flexible tool with a
    broader range of capabilities than the p&s you're used to.

    I don't doubt that, but the examples you gave show that the dslr was
    simply the better tool for the kinds of photos you like to take.

    Steve
     
    smb, Dec 21, 2006
  6. aniramca

    smb Guest

    Answer: water vapor.

    By comparison, CO2 is a very minor player; if you are a planetary
    scientist you should know that. :)

    The problem with this is that to make changes fast enough to reverse
    what humans have supposedly done to mess with the system in the past
    century would mean total economic chaos.

    That was the problem with the Kyoto treaty. It would have hamstrung
    the industrial economies of developed nations while allowing others to
    have a free ride in continuing to pollute the air. Bad treaty. Bad.

    Are you prepared to give up your automobile right now? Are you
    prepared to give up electricity right now? Are you prepared to give
    up the industrial economy that gives us our cameras right now? I'm
    not. If the doomsayers are actually right, our noble efforts at
    recycling and buying hybrid cars are too little too late. Meanwhile,
    people like Al Gore keep flying around in airplanes and driving around
    in SUVs while telling us what we need to do to save the planet.

    Personally, I think the planet is quite capable of taking care of
    itself. A good volcanic eruption puts a lot of junk in the air, too.

    Good segway! :)

    On the positive side, smaller glaciers would mean that we wouldn't
    need lenses as wide to photograph them. That would be a boon for
    those of us with APS-sized sensors in our dslrs. ;-)

    Steve
     
    smb, Dec 21, 2006
  7. Hi J,
    Global warming by human activities can only be during times when human
    activities could affect global climate. Humans did not have any technology
    that could cause any noticable change in the climate until we seriously
    started burning fossil fuel. Fossil fuel produces CO2. CO2 causes
    greenhouse effects. Greenhouse effects cause warming. Looks pretty simple
    to me. Where is the junk science in that?
    Please explain to me why global _warming_ is a good thing? We are not
    talking about stabilization, we are talking about disturbing the balance and
    heading into a future that is going to be hotter than any period that humans
    have ever encountered in the past. We are talking about dramatic increase
    in temperatures in the past 100 years. Not 10,000, but 100 years. We are
    not preventing anything, we are _causing_ things.

    I have seen this argument that global warming will cause more land to be
    habitable, the North Pole route to open and all sorts of other advantages.
    All true, but it will also result in devestation of farmland through the
    south of the North America, Europe along with South America, Africa, Asia.
    These areas now produce most of the food we eat. End results will be
    drastically _reduced_ habitable land than we have now. What good does it do
    for us to melt the ice sheet of the Arctic or the Antartic, or warm up the
    Himalayas, when all that we get in return is a desert???

    According to experts in the oil industry (according to articles I've read in
    WSJ and FT) we will reach peak oil production sometime between 2020 and
    2040. Optimists say 2040, pesimists say 2020. Production of sweet crude
    oil in the Middle East has gone down 15% compared to 10 years ago and will
    drop faster as more and more wells dry up. We can not rely on fossil fuel
    for much longer and one of the reasons why global warming is a big issue is
    that we _must_ do something to fix the cause for it because otherwise we
    will simply run out of oil before the end of this century and then what???
    Oil prices are only going to go up as the sweet crude oil runs out, which is
    the cheapest to refine and produces the most economical gasoline. The CEO
    of GM said in an interview (think it was last year) that they could make
    _all_ their cars get >30mpg (or 35mpg, don't quite remember), without any
    sacrifice in performance, but it would cost an average of $3,000 pr. car.

    Just my $0.02:)
     
    Arnor Baldvinsson, Dec 21, 2006
  8. Consider this analogy: People die. A plot of people over the
    ages show they all die. A plot of war deaths show people die.
    But to say wars don't result death because people die anyway
    IS junk science. But to most people such causality is
    absurd because people UNDERSTAND the reasons for death in wars.

    The same with climatology. Just because historical climate
    has changed, and changed a lot does not mean global change
    science is junk. The physics underlying climatological science
    is sound. The basics of the greenhouse effect is well understood
    and well predicted by science. This page from a university lecture
    summarizes the basic issues pretty well (but sweeps some
    details under the rug):
    http://segre.ieec.uab.es/miralda/fsgw/lect3.html
    Try and understand what it means. The data are clear:
    people are adding things into the atmosphere that are not natural.
    To ignore such effects is no different than ignoring
    a toxic waste spill in your backyard, except that the consequences
    of global change effects everyone on the planet.

    The issues involving global change are complex, and include
    absorption by gases, absorption and reflection from clouds and
    the earth's surface, variable output by the sun, changing
    orbital parameters of the Earth's orbit, all resulting in a
    delicate balance.

    Then consider another possibility: the global change models
    appear to be under-predicting temperature rises. They also
    have not until recently properly accounted for aerosol scattering
    which has been shown to be a measurable effect of cooling
    (by scattering sunlight into space before it can be absorbed).
    If the models are under-predicting, we may be in worse shape.
    The modeling of the minute details over the whole Earth is
    very complex, so people who don't want to believe the models
    dismiss the whole idea and want to ignore the problem.

    Back to photography and global change. I have been photographing
    the American west for over 30 years. The last decade, and
    increasing over the last few years seems like when
    I go out into the mountains or canyon country and can't get
    great scenics due to the haze from air pollution.
    It seems that it is a rare day with pollution-free skies.
    In the 1980s and into the 1990s I had great opportunities
    with pollution-free skies. In the last 3 years on trips to
    Canyonlands, I have not had one good day comparable to days
    in the early 1990s.

    These are my opinions and not necessarily those of my
    employer.

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Dec 21, 2006
  9. Typical. Attack on a small typing mistake to destroy
    credibility. It doesn't work.
    Well, credible scientists pretty much agree that many sources of data
    are pointing to an accelerating warming. That data includes
    direct temperature measurements for over a century, shrinking
    glaciers, shrinking polar caps, changing vegetation species
    with elevation, changing animal habitat (e.g. polar bear weight
    decreasing with changing habitat), etc.

    The global change modelers have shown that such changes are
    expected due to increase in gases put into the atmosphere by
    people. They have had to back off of some predictions, for example,
    for a long time they denied solar effects, but satellite data
    shows that the sun is slightly variable and appears to be
    on an upward trend in the long term (decades) as well as with
    the 11-year sunspot cycle. Now you see the reports
    say "some of the warming is due to people." But I have yet
    to see any scientific paper in a peer-reviewed journal
    that shows the climate trends are entirely due to natural
    causes.

    It is hard to deny that people are putting a lot of pollution into
    the atmosphere, and folly to deny there aren't effects.
    I have not seen Al Gore's movie. I get my information
    directly from scientific papers from scientific journals.

    Next trip to Alaska, I might try and visit some of the
    glaciers I photographed in the 1990s to see how they have
    changed.

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Dec 21, 2006
  10. aniramca

    J. Clarke Guest

    <sigh>

    Which would you prefer? Rising sea levels or descending glaciers? Are
    you absolutely 100 percent stake your kid's life on it certain that
    stopping all human emission of greenhouse gases will (a) prevent rising
    sea levels and (b) not result in the coming of the next period of
    glaciation?

    Are you also 100 percent certain that what we are seeing now is not a
    natural part of the planet resuming its equilibrium state, which is _not_
    anything that humans have ever experienced?

    If the current period of stable temperatures is not the result of human
    activity, as you seem to be asserting, then what _is_ the cause? Do you
    know the answer to that? Does anybody? Has any "global warming" activist
    ever even suggested that this was worth looking at?

    If you want to panic over global warming and agitate for precipitate
    political action be my guest, but don't expect any sympathy from me when
    the glacier grinds your house into rubble.
     
    J. Clarke, Dec 21, 2006
  11. aniramca

    smb Guest

    Typical. You missed the intentional irony of the typing mistake
    comment; which showed how lame your attack was in lumping someone's
    belief about global warming with their credibility regarding the
    subject at hand.. That didn't work either.


    My comments were still about Al Gore and his sky-is-falling
    politicizing of the issue.

    Regarding what credible scientists may say, it's still not conclusive.
    Maybe the earth is warming from a combination of natural and human
    effects. Maybe it isn't. There are models and predictions, but there
    is no proof. In the meantime, what are we to do about it? The only
    thing we have reasonable proof of is that the Earth has gone through
    many warming and cooling cycles in the past. So we're on a warming
    cycle now, whatever the cause. What of it? Each cycle brings the
    stress of forcing change on the inhabitants. We'd better adapt or get
    out of dodge.

    Me, I'm placing my money on learning to live with warmer weather
    rather than preach doom and gloom. If things are truly getting
    warmer, I personally don't think there's a darned thing we can do
    about it.


    You'd better walk there, then, lest you put more greenhouse gasses in
    the atmosphere! For Heaven's sake, don't fly. USA Today just ran a
    story about how aircraft are huge contributors to greenhouse gasses.
    They must be right, they put it in writing. :)

    When you go, I'll bet you'll find they either shrunk, grew or stayed
    the same. We live on a dynamic planet.

    Steve
     
    smb, Dec 21, 2006
  12. aniramca

    J. Clarke Guest

    So you're saying that burning wood doesn't produce CO2? If not then what
    are you saying?

    Humans have had fire for half a million years and have been producing CO2
    with it the whole time. Why is it that all of a sudden right now we need
    to Do Something?
    And by causing one thing we may be preventing another.
    In what way will farm land be "devestated"? You have proof of this or
    just conjecture? Africa doesn't have a Hell of a lot of farmland to
    "devestate" by the way, the soil is almost universally very poor, which
    the various do-gooders took a long time to figure out.

    Further, glaciation would wipe out almost _all_ the farm land in North
    America, not "devestate" it but bury it under miles of ice. I'll take
    "devestation" over that.
    You're rather instead that we have antarctica everywhere?
    So in 2040 the emissions from burning petroleum start declining and
    problem solved. So why panic?
    I'm sorry, but I'm having trouble following your argument here. You're
    saying that we should stop using oil to prevent global warming but running
    out of oil and thus ending global warming is something that we should
    avoid?
    And of course you have a link to this interview. Didn't think so.
    And a bargain at . . . nahh, it's not a bargain at any price.

    Basicall you seem to be arguing that we should panic and pass a bunch of
    laws to solve a problem that is going to go away on its own soon anyway.
     
    J. Clarke, Dec 21, 2006
  13. There is no proof that the theory of gravity is correct either.
    Gravity exists. We use gravity theory to navigate spacecraft
    all over the solar system with amazing precision. But
    there is no proof. But the theory works well enough to
    explain all our needs with impressive precision.

    The evidence for accelerated global warming is growing
    every year. The data are "shouting louder and louder."
    There is no proof in most science. But there are models
    and predictions that have very high probability of being
    correct.

    There are no models using the vast arrays of data from multiple
    sources, that I'm aware of, in the peer-reviewed
    scientific literature that indicates that all the CO2 and
    other pollution we put into our environment do not
    have an effect. Please cite peer reviewed science papers
    that indicate your position has merit.

    CO2 is a well documented greenhouse gas. We have direct
    measurements of its effects on the Earth, Venus and Mars.
    Pumping CO2 into the atmosphere will have an effect.

    No one answered my question on what is the most important
    greenhouse gas by a factor of about 8 over all other terrestrial
    greenhouse gases?
    I hope you don't live in Florida when the polar ice caps
    melt! Get out your scuba gear!
    http://nsidc.org/sotc/glacier_balance.html.
    Glacier net loss from 1961 to present: about 6,000 cubic kilometers!

    The polar ice caps are shrinking too:
    "The minimum Arctic sea ice animation clearly
    shows how over the last 5 years the quantity
    of polar ice has decreased by 10 - 14% from the 22 year average."
    http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003100/a003181/index.html

    Better go photograph polar bears while you can. In a few
    years they may be quite rare.

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Dec 22, 2006
  14. aniramca

    J. Clarke Guest

    Actually there is a great deal of proof that the equations describing
    gravitation are in fact correct to an accuracy useful for engineering and
    navigational purposes.
    I'm sorry, but there are no equations for climatological analysis that
    have been verified with the degree of thoroughness for which those
    describing gravitation have been verified. If you press one of these
    climatologists you'll find that his model at best accurately described
    the last hundred years or so, and that he has never tested it over the
    time frame of a full glaciation cycle. And absent that the model is
    missing far too much to be useful as anything but a laboratory exercise.
    Have an effect is one thing. Knowing exactly what that effect is and what
    will happen if we change the production rate is quite another.
    We have direct measurements of its effect on Venus and Mars? So how long
    have we been measuring CO2 concentrations on Venus and Mars?
    I'm sorry, but this is not a test.
    I hope you don't live in the US or Europe or anywhere else in the
    temperate zone when the glaciers descend. Get out your skis and your
    woolies.
     
    J. Clarke, Dec 22, 2006
  15. It is very simple math. There are inventories of oil gas and
    coal used by every country each year. One can compute the
    amount of that fossil fuel burned that turns into CO2 and also
    measure it directly from cars and other sources. Ever had an
    emissions test on your car? Look at the data. The composition
    of the atmosphere is monitored at multiple places on the globe
    and has been for decades. A large fraction of the CO2 from
    anthropogenic (that means by people) is recorded by those
    atmospheric sensors. The earth's system (plants, soils,
    weathering processes) pulls some but not all of it out of
    the atmosphere. There is a lot of research on carbon dioxide
    sources and sinks and the anthropogenic sources are measurable
    and significant and it is well demonstrated that the major increase
    on CO2 is due to anthropogenic sources.

    If you know of something in the environment that pulls all the
    CO2 from cars out of the atmosphere, and another natural source
    that puts in the observed CO2 increase, publish it. You will
    certainly win a Nobel prize.

    Or do you believe that all the air pollution we pump into our
    atmosphere has no effect? What evidence do you have
    besides since one can't smell or see CO2 so it must not be
    bad?

    See:
    http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/ctec/Carbon/carboncycle.htm
    There are about 4 to 5 gigatons of CO2 put into our atmosphere
    each year from burning fossil fuels.
    After all sources and sinks are considered, there is
    an estimated net increase into the atmosphere of 4.5 to 6.5
    gigatons of CO2 per year (6.1 gigaton average per year from
    1700 to 1999, for a total increase of 188 gigatons.
    That's an increase of 188,000,000,000 tons of CO2!
    And most (but not all) of it is anthropogenic. And the rate
    is accelerating.

    So how many times do you defecate in your drinking water before
    you notice something is wrong? Do you really believe that
    pumping all the air pollution we do into our atmosphere
    has no consequences?

    And look at the alternative. Keep using fossil fuels until
    it is all gone. Peak production is estimated to be less than 20
    to less than 40 years away. The price of fossil fuels will
    keep rising. Alternative energy is more stable and decreasing.
    If solar cells were mass produced on scales comparable to
    cheap digital cameras (photo thing to keep thread on
    topic ;-) the price would drop like that of cheap digital
    cameras. Add wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, etc.

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Dec 22, 2006
  16. Not proof. Good evidence, but not proof.
    Wrong. There are many fundamental physics equations used.
    e.g. see:
    Context: How does a climate model work?
    http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/N..._modeling/C__How_climate_models_work_5iy.html
    see above web site.
    For decades. The concepts in CO2 greenhouse gas effects came
    out of studying Venus several decades ago. There are multiple
    ways the CO2 can be measured: from earth based telescopes using
    infrared spectroscopy. The absorption line profiles of multiple
    lines are used to derive the gas abundance, temperature and pressure
    as a function of altitude. Then spacecraft directly sample the
    atmospheric components.
    A simple answer would establish you know something about greenhouse
    gases. It is also a clue to the problems with climate models
    in my (and a number of other scientists) opinions.
    Yep, it might be a problem when the solar flux drops and we
    go into another mini ice age, which some solar scientists say
    could start in about 10 years. Then we'll see everyone
    yelling to pump more CO2 into the atmosphere to keep us
    warm! ;-)

    You might detect I don't hold all of global climate models as
    perfect. They have multiple problems. But independent of the models
    are the data. And the data are indicating profound influences
    on the planet by people that should not be ignored.

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Dec 22, 2006
  17. I have no data to give you but I suspect that forest fires caused a lot more
    CO2 500,000 years ago than humans using fire did. Relatively speaking, a bunch
    of humans huddling over a campfire don't a greenhouse effect make.
     
    Toni Nikkanen, Dec 22, 2006
  18. aniramca

    smb Guest

    Oh, please.... there is much more evidence of gravity than there is
    of human-caused global warming. The reason that we can navigate with
    gravity is because it is so predictable even if we don't understand
    the mechanism behind it. Global warming is still speculation and
    open to debate. Don't forget, peer-reviewed scientists were warning
    us of global cooling not long ago.

    Peer reviewed just means that others with similar opinions agree.
    Please cite conclusive proof that what you say is true. Otherwise it
    is all a matter of speculation and models that depend on many
    variables.

    It's interesting that some scientists are now stepping back from their
    original projections. My guess is that 20 years from now scientists
    may be looking back and discussing in peer-reviewed journals how the
    global warming scare was mostly hot air. They changed their minds
    about global cooling, why not this also?
    Well, actually I answered your question, if you bothered to look. The
    most important greenhouse gas by far is water vapor. The effects of
    CO2 are minor by comparison. We could double the amount of CO2 we
    put in the atmosphere and it would have a relatively minor effect on
    global temperatures. Some scientists have determined that the total
    effect of CO2 on the rise in global temperatures since the time of the
    industrial revolution is indeed quite small.

    http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.e...-increased-atmospheric-concentrations-of-co2/


    What about that big continuous nuclear explosion in the sky that we
    call the sun? Perhaps that is the biggest factor by far in the mean
    temperature of the planet... don't you think so?


    If you actually believe that will happen in our lifetimes, if at all,
    you probably also think that "The Day After Tomorrow" was a
    documentary. :)

    Right, the planet is dymamic, as I said.

    The bigger question is, what are YOU going to do about it? If this
    rapid and drastic change is indeed the result of man's activities over
    the past century, then how do you intend to put the brakes on it? Do
    you really think that curbside recycling or taking mass transportation
    is going to make a dent in the process? Are you personally prepared
    to divest yourself from all human activities that put CO2 and other
    gases into the air? Are you going to demand that all third world
    countries put an immediate stop to their plans for becoming
    industrialized? Good luck with that.


    If true, where is the corresponding 10 - 14% increase in the rate of
    sea level rise in the past 5 years? That percentage of melting of
    the polar ice is HUGE, and if true we should have seen a significant
    rise in sea levels already. If the remaining 86 - 90% of the ice
    melts, as you seem to believe, how will that result in Florida being
    under water?

    The only ones I've photographed have been in zoos. If their natural
    environment actually is shrinking, they will either adapt or die out.
    There are lots of species in the museums who couldn't adapt to the
    constantly changing natural environment, long before man built the
    first smoke stack.



    Steve
     
    smb, Dec 22, 2006
  19. aniramca

    J. Clarke Guest

    It is clear to me that you have a script on this topic and nothing on
    Earth is going to divert you from that script, so there is no point in
    attempting to discuss the matter further.

    And why do you keep going off about prices? The price of fuel has zip all
    to do with climate.
     
    J. Clarke, Dec 22, 2006
  20. Why do you say that? The price of fuel has everything to do with
    climate. Or do you have infinite money to buy all the fuel you
    want regardless of it's price?
     
    Toni Nikkanen, Dec 22, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.