I am typing this post kind of in response to Al Globus’s article on space.com (http://www.space.com/adastra/070802_adastra_spacesettlement.html) stating that if we started settling in space, there would be no more need for war.
Can space settlement really end the need for war, like Al Globus, who serves on the board for the National Space Society, states is possible? Al States many reasons why there will be no need for war if we settle space, but I do not believe that it is possible. War will continue into and even after space settlement because this is a world where humanity is governed by the aggressive use of force.
First Al states that we fight wars to gain or preserve control of resources, particularly territory. He continues to explain that the European expansion in the 15th- 20th centuries to gain new territory and resources sparked many wars including the World Wars. Al goes on to say that today there is no need for that because once we expand into space, there will be so many resources to choose from that nobody will need fight over it. He is right that there will be no need to fight for it, but is there really a need to fight any war if everybody had that mindset? The fact of the matter is there will always be some lunatic that will want it all. Hitler wanted it all, and he tried to conquer the world. We of course know this was impossible for him to do, but he tried it anyway. It caused millions of deaths and hundreds of billions of dollars in war costs and rebuilding. Someone in the future will try to do the same thing on a larger scale, the solar system. It will of course prove impossible, but not before that person causes billions of deaths (assuming in the future humanity has grown in population quite a bit by the settlement of space) and many trillions of dollars in war costs, and damages.
Al states that in each asteroid there is many trillions of dollars worth of resources. Each asteroid has enough material to build a habitat for a super large city (many times bigger than New York City). There are many thousands, if not hundreds of thousands or millions of asteroids out there in the vastness of our solar system. Because of this, Al states that resources wars will be obsolete. This is just not true. There have been many times in history where people have attacked a neighbor just to gain its resources or territory, even though it had some of its own. This comes back down to just wanting to conquer something for the sake of conquering. People will still need to protect themselves from this.
There is also a threat of space Terrorism. We can’t predict the future, but it’s safe to say there will always be some group of people that hate everything. They will probably be located in a place with a lot of resources, such as the asteroid belt, so that they can either control that area, much like OPEC most of the worlds oil, or they could cause havoc to any mining company that wants to harvest resources.
There are many reasons to fight a war. For Tterritory, or resources, or just to conquer for the sake of conquering, but to say that space settlement will end the need for war is misleading. Because there will always be evil, or people that want it all. After all, this is, and always will be a world where humanity is governed by the aggressive use of force. It’s a sad truth, but reality none the less.
Thursday, August 2, 2007
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Great Sources About Global Warming, And Just How Little We Effect It!
Some More Global Warming Evidence.
Causes of Global Climate change- primarily by cyclical eccentricities in Earth’s rotation and orbit, as well as variations in the suns energy output. Greenhouse gases in earths atmosphere also influence earths temperature, but in a smaller way. Human additions to total greenhouse gasses play a still smaller role, contributing about 0.2%- 0.3%.
Major Causes
11 year and 206 years cycles of the sun
21000 year cycle of earths combined tilt and elliptical orbit around the sun
41000 year cycle of the +/- 1.5 degree wobble in Earths orbit
100000 year cycle of the variations in the shape of Earths Elliptical orbit
Heat retention due to atmospheric gases, mostly water vapor, but some miscellaneous, the most common of those being CO2
Solar reflectivity Due to white clouds, volcanic dust, and polar ice caps
Landmass distribution of the shifting of the continents
Undersea ridge activities.
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/enviro/EnviroRepublish_233658.htm
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
Playing with Numbers
Global climate and temperature cycles are the result of a complex interplay between a varieties of causes, because these cycles and events overlap, sometimes compounding one another, and canceling one another out. Unfortunately a lot of disinformation about where Earths climate is heading is being propagated by “scientists” who use improper statistical methods, short-term temperature trends, or faulty computer models to make analytical and anecdotal projections about the significance of man-made influences
In the last 100 years, two general cycles of warming and cooling have been recorded. We are currently in the second warming cycle. Overall, there is no significant warming trend over the last 100 years.
Also, government press release declare the previous year (quoting something written in 2001) was the hottest year on record and insisted that the 20th century was the warmest in the last millennium. The media then distributed these stories to make people believe that it was fact. But most climatologists know, these report are founded on ground-based temperature readings, which are misleading. The more meaningful and precise orbiting satellite data for the same period, which is not citied by the media, have year after year showed little or no warming. Dr. Patrick Michaels demonstrated that ground-based recording stations, many located in rural areas, were overtime suffering background bias due to urban sprawl and the encroachment of concrete and asphalt, the urban heat island effect. This results in an upward distortion of increases in ground temperature over time. Satellites are accurate within 0.1 degree Celsius, and are the most accurate data available. Orbiting satellites have shown no significant warming in the 18 years they have been continuously recording and returning data!
So where does man-made global warming come in?
Man-made pollution is NOT supported by historical FACT. The period known as the “Holocene Maximum” is a good example. This was the hottest period in human history. Its from R.S. Bradley and J.A. Eddy based on J.T. Houghton et al., Climate Change: The IPCC Assessment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990. These facts are interesting because they occurred approximately 7500 to 4000 years ago! Man, their cars and industries back then must have really been bad ;).
So what is the greenhouse effect, and just how much of the greenhouse effect is caused by humans’ activity?
It’s about .28%, if water vapor is taken into account, or about 5.53% if not.
This is crucial to the debate because of how water vapor is or isn’t factored into the analysis of Earth greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution or a negligible one.
Water Vapor constitutes Earths MOST SIGNIFICANT greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95 percent of earth’s greenhouse effect. It’s very interesting how people forget water vapor, because doing this carelessly (maybe deliberately) overstates human impacts as much as 20-fold.
Water Vapor is pretty much of natural origin. With this Human activities contribute slightly to the greenhouse effect. Over 99 percent of the greenhouse effect is from natural sources, so we can do nothing about it.
For some more interesting statistics. These show individual human contribution. For CO2, that is 3.224 % for methane its 18.33 %, for nitrous oxide its 4.933 5 and for other gases, its 65 percent. Again this constitutes to an overall contribution of .28 % including water vapor! Based on Image 9, Anthropogenic (the scientific name for man-made) CO2 contributions cause only .117 % of Earths greenhouse effect. This is horribly insignificant!
The Kyoto Protocol calls for mandatory carbon dioxide reduction of 30 % from developed countries like the US. Reducing CO2 emissions this much would have an UNDETECTABLE effect on the climate while having a DEVASTATING effect on the US economy. Such drastic measures, even imposed equally on all countries around the world, would reduce total Human greenhouse contributions from CO2 by about .035%!...lol…man now I feel good, I helped save the environment by doing this…yay (sarcasm)
Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service; in a sept. 10, 2001 letter to the Wall Street Journal… “There is no dispute at all the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures – one-twentieth of a degree by 2050”
To sum it up, the ability of humans to influence greenhouse water vapor is negligible. People whose agenda it is to require that humans are the cause of global warming must discount or ignore the effects of water vapor to preserve their arguments. If political correctness and staying out of trouble aren’t high priorities for you, go ahead and ask them how water vapor was handled in their models or statistics. Chances are, IT WASN’T!!!
And if you want to see the relation to solar wind and increases in CO2, then look at image 10
So, if you want to know where I got this info, it’s from
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
And they site references such as…
Current greenhouse Gas Concentrations
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html
Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming Potentials
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/SHSU5BUM9T/$File/ghg_gwp.pdf
S.M Freidenreich and V. Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journals of Geophysical Research (1993):7255-7264
Global Deception: The Exaggeration of the Global Warming Threat
By D. Patrick J. Michaels (sited above in quote)
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Doc/PMichaels_Jun98.pdf
And many more, just scroll down to the bottom of the page I got the facts.
The case for a “greenhouse problem” is made by environmentalists, news anchormen, and special interests that make inaccurate and misleading statements about global warming and climate change. Even though people may be skeptical of such rhetoric initially, after awhile people start believing it must be true because we hear it so often.
Fun Facts
Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.
At 368 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.
CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life-- plants and animals alike-- benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.
CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there but is continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth's oceans-- the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.
And there are quotes by people at the 3nd of the page too.
I urge you too look at the very bottom too, because there’s more interesting facts about the geological record. And there are sources cited by Harvard, MIT and more!
Causes of Global Climate change- primarily by cyclical eccentricities in Earth’s rotation and orbit, as well as variations in the suns energy output. Greenhouse gases in earths atmosphere also influence earths temperature, but in a smaller way. Human additions to total greenhouse gasses play a still smaller role, contributing about 0.2%- 0.3%.
Major Causes
11 year and 206 years cycles of the sun
21000 year cycle of earths combined tilt and elliptical orbit around the sun
41000 year cycle of the +/- 1.5 degree wobble in Earths orbit
100000 year cycle of the variations in the shape of Earths Elliptical orbit
Heat retention due to atmospheric gases, mostly water vapor, but some miscellaneous, the most common of those being CO2
Solar reflectivity Due to white clouds, volcanic dust, and polar ice caps
Landmass distribution of the shifting of the continents
Undersea ridge activities.
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/enviro/EnviroRepublish_233658.htm
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
Playing with Numbers
Global climate and temperature cycles are the result of a complex interplay between a varieties of causes, because these cycles and events overlap, sometimes compounding one another, and canceling one another out. Unfortunately a lot of disinformation about where Earths climate is heading is being propagated by “scientists” who use improper statistical methods, short-term temperature trends, or faulty computer models to make analytical and anecdotal projections about the significance of man-made influences
In the last 100 years, two general cycles of warming and cooling have been recorded. We are currently in the second warming cycle. Overall, there is no significant warming trend over the last 100 years.
Also, government press release declare the previous year (quoting something written in 2001) was the hottest year on record and insisted that the 20th century was the warmest in the last millennium. The media then distributed these stories to make people believe that it was fact. But most climatologists know, these report are founded on ground-based temperature readings, which are misleading. The more meaningful and precise orbiting satellite data for the same period, which is not citied by the media, have year after year showed little or no warming. Dr. Patrick Michaels demonstrated that ground-based recording stations, many located in rural areas, were overtime suffering background bias due to urban sprawl and the encroachment of concrete and asphalt, the urban heat island effect. This results in an upward distortion of increases in ground temperature over time. Satellites are accurate within 0.1 degree Celsius, and are the most accurate data available. Orbiting satellites have shown no significant warming in the 18 years they have been continuously recording and returning data!
So where does man-made global warming come in?
Man-made pollution is NOT supported by historical FACT. The period known as the “Holocene Maximum” is a good example. This was the hottest period in human history. Its from R.S. Bradley and J.A. Eddy based on J.T. Houghton et al., Climate Change: The IPCC Assessment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990. These facts are interesting because they occurred approximately 7500 to 4000 years ago! Man, their cars and industries back then must have really been bad ;).
So what is the greenhouse effect, and just how much of the greenhouse effect is caused by humans’ activity?
It’s about .28%, if water vapor is taken into account, or about 5.53% if not.
This is crucial to the debate because of how water vapor is or isn’t factored into the analysis of Earth greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution or a negligible one.
Water Vapor constitutes Earths MOST SIGNIFICANT greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95 percent of earth’s greenhouse effect. It’s very interesting how people forget water vapor, because doing this carelessly (maybe deliberately) overstates human impacts as much as 20-fold.
Water Vapor is pretty much of natural origin. With this Human activities contribute slightly to the greenhouse effect. Over 99 percent of the greenhouse effect is from natural sources, so we can do nothing about it.
For some more interesting statistics. These show individual human contribution. For CO2, that is 3.224 % for methane its 18.33 %, for nitrous oxide its 4.933 5 and for other gases, its 65 percent. Again this constitutes to an overall contribution of .28 % including water vapor! Based on Image 9, Anthropogenic (the scientific name for man-made) CO2 contributions cause only .117 % of Earths greenhouse effect. This is horribly insignificant!
The Kyoto Protocol calls for mandatory carbon dioxide reduction of 30 % from developed countries like the US. Reducing CO2 emissions this much would have an UNDETECTABLE effect on the climate while having a DEVASTATING effect on the US economy. Such drastic measures, even imposed equally on all countries around the world, would reduce total Human greenhouse contributions from CO2 by about .035%!...lol…man now I feel good, I helped save the environment by doing this…yay (sarcasm)
Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service; in a sept. 10, 2001 letter to the Wall Street Journal… “There is no dispute at all the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures – one-twentieth of a degree by 2050”
To sum it up, the ability of humans to influence greenhouse water vapor is negligible. People whose agenda it is to require that humans are the cause of global warming must discount or ignore the effects of water vapor to preserve their arguments. If political correctness and staying out of trouble aren’t high priorities for you, go ahead and ask them how water vapor was handled in their models or statistics. Chances are, IT WASN’T!!!
And if you want to see the relation to solar wind and increases in CO2, then look at image 10
So, if you want to know where I got this info, it’s from
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
And they site references such as…
Current greenhouse Gas Concentrations
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html
Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming Potentials
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/SHSU5BUM9T/$File/ghg_gwp.pdf
S.M Freidenreich and V. Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journals of Geophysical Research (1993):7255-7264
Global Deception: The Exaggeration of the Global Warming Threat
By D. Patrick J. Michaels (sited above in quote)
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Doc/PMichaels_Jun98.pdf
And many more, just scroll down to the bottom of the page I got the facts.
The case for a “greenhouse problem” is made by environmentalists, news anchormen, and special interests that make inaccurate and misleading statements about global warming and climate change. Even though people may be skeptical of such rhetoric initially, after awhile people start believing it must be true because we hear it so often.
Fun Facts
Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.
At 368 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.
CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life-- plants and animals alike-- benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.
CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there but is continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth's oceans-- the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.
And there are quotes by people at the 3nd of the page too.
I urge you too look at the very bottom too, because there’s more interesting facts about the geological record. And there are sources cited by Harvard, MIT and more!
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Global Warming
I'm tired of all of the liberals preaching that we, humans, are destroying the planet. People like Al Gore (and i know he's not the only one) are out there preaching that you are destroying the planet and you must stop your way of life in order to bring the average temperature down.
Here are some facts that are kind of Inconvenient for Al...
Global Warming has not been proven...he touts it as fact
While 90 percent of scientists agree that its man made, a consensus is not fact
The number 1 greenhouse gas is water vapor (there is 60 times more water vapor than CO2)
There is substantial evidence that there are many natural causes for global warming, but the scientists that notice this are being press out of the press and are being called global warming deniers. The fact of the matter is, they have better evidence that its all natural. To think that man is causing global warming is ludicrous. To think that improving your standard of living is destroying the planet is pretty ignorant. Here are some websites...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/06/010615071248.htm
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/global_warming.html
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977
And one from Harvard...
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1997/11.06/BrighteningSuni.html
and the Washington times
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040718-115714-6334r.htm
and more
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1045327.stm
I can give you plenty more...Heres some lists of scientists that don't agree with man made global warming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_skeptic
http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-scientists-opposing-global-warming-consensus
Those are some, there are plenty more. If anybody would like more please just comment and let me know.
Thats it for now, More soon,
D-Rich
Here are some facts that are kind of Inconvenient for Al...
Global Warming has not been proven...he touts it as fact
While 90 percent of scientists agree that its man made, a consensus is not fact
The number 1 greenhouse gas is water vapor (there is 60 times more water vapor than CO2)
There is substantial evidence that there are many natural causes for global warming, but the scientists that notice this are being press out of the press and are being called global warming deniers. The fact of the matter is, they have better evidence that its all natural. To think that man is causing global warming is ludicrous. To think that improving your standard of living is destroying the planet is pretty ignorant. Here are some websites...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/06/010615071248.htm
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/global_warming.html
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977
And one from Harvard...
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1997/11.06/BrighteningSuni.html
and the Washington times
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040718-115714-6334r.htm
and more
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1045327.stm
I can give you plenty more...Heres some lists of scientists that don't agree with man made global warming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_skeptic
http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-scientists-opposing-global-warming-consensus
Those are some, there are plenty more. If anybody would like more please just comment and let me know.
Thats it for now, More soon,
D-Rich
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
