Instructables
" Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation."

Carbon dioxide and other air pollutants collect in the atmosphere, trapping in the sun's heat. The good news, is that there are simple steps you can take to take, to help do your part in the fight against global warming!
 
Remove these adsRemove these ads by Signing Up

Step 1: Your Home

Lights

One of the easiest things you can do, to help with global warming, is change your light bulbs. Start using Compact Fluorescent bulbs. It takes about three CF bulbs to use the same amount of energy as one traditional light bulb. Plus, they last longer.

Turn off the lights when you leave the room, you don't need them on, so why have them on? It will save the world, and money.

General Electricity Usage

Even when one of your electronic devices is turned off, it still uses electricity. So buy a power strip, and just unplug it whenever you aren't using your stuff.

Don't leave your computer on all day. If you won't turn it off, at least put it on hibernate or stand by when you're gone.

Don't run your dishwasher, unless it's totally full

Air dry your clothes, instead of using the dryer

Take shorter showers, and use a low-flow shower head

The House

Make sure all of your walls and ceilings are insulated.

Switch to double pane windows, they keep more heat in your home.

Buy some caulk and weather stripping for you doors and windows that sometimes leak out air.

Wives will like this one - Replace those old energy inefficient appliances, in favor of newer ones that use less energy.

Ask your electric company if you can purchase renewable energy. It will cost more, but you'll have piece of mind.

A low flow toilet is a good idea too. Toto and American Standard Cadet are two brands that are supposed to make good low flow toilets.

Water Heater

Insulate your water heater, and turn it down to 120 degrees Fahrenheit

Switch to a tank less heater..water will be heated as needed, instead of keeping a tank of heated water.

I have no idea why people talk much about Global Warming despite having a number of solutions to it!

Regarding my previous comments: I've changed my possition on global warming since I last posted comments on this 'ible. For now, I guess I have no opinion on it.
To Global Warming skeptics: remember that laymen like me and you are likely to misunderstand certain science, which could lead us into trouble.
EU
jj.inc3 years ago
Its no longer Global Warming, Its climate change do to the different climate variances right now.
like the record lows in weather temp? :P
Yes, exactly
The best you can do to save our Earth is, encourage others to Conserve. Share information about recycling and energy conservation with your friends, neighbors and co-workers, and take opportunities to encourage public officials to establish programs and policies that are good for the environment. You can organize social programs and plays to make people realize, the hazards of Global Warming. Cover your pots while cooking because, it saves a lot of the energy needed for preparing the dish. Even better are pressure cookers and steamers they can save around 70% of energy.  Ways to stop Global Warming
jj.inc3 years ago
oops left something out, plant a tree
jekin4 years ago
It's good practice to reuse and recycle, its good practice to NOT pump loads of co2 into the atmosphere, its good practice to do a lot of things that people are not doing. Perhaps we deserve the chaos that global warming might bring to us. Ways to stop global warming
jj.inc jekin3 years ago
chaos, LOL
harley_rly4 years ago
global warming....lol
what a croc o' crap
totally
harley_rly5 years ago
lol...global warming. whatta joke...if those stupid scientists are right about what they say, then what will happen is it will heat so much that the ice caps melt, and the oceans get colder due to loss of salinity and additional water, which will then dramatically affect the climate causing a drop in temperature and possibly another ice age, so the whole global warming thing is probably a natural cycle
Maccaro6 years ago
Don't trees give out CO2 at night as well so they balance it out. some bacteria reduce CO2 and having a large library can lock carbon into a solid state that would not be gotten rid of.
Weissensteinburg (author)  Maccaro6 years ago
No, trees only take in Co2 and give out oxygen.
Tree's definately respire insted of photosynthesise when there is no light giving of CO2 and making alchohol in the plant.
Pumpkin$6 years ago
ok guys if you are gonna play lib. I can too!
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html
LOL there's YOUR sign!
Pumpkin$,
So you take your science from the newspapers! I'm really impressed!

I have to make do with science from scientists. Sniff!



FYI the so-called “expert” in the “Australian” article was Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist!
What do biologists study? Erm, they study biology. Duh!

What Marohasy went on to say was dishonest cherry-picked facts, lies and deceit. Nothing to do with science. She has political & ideological reasons for what she says!

What are the scientists called that study the climate? Erm, I know this, they're mm..., they're called climatologists!

What do biologists know about climate science? Zip!

Marohasy is not looking quite so expert in climatology now!

So, it might be an idea to look at what world respected working climate experts are saying about the climate!

It can be clearly seen that the graph wiggles, but that the overall trend is clearly upwards. There is no reason to expect anything very different in the foreseeable future.

Source of graph Climatic Research Unit and the UK Met. Office Hadley Centre:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gtc2007.gif
See http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/ for a description of the data and this graph.

Similar graphs are available from NASA / GISS

Introductory material on a variety of climate-related subjects intended for the interested layperson.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/

A small selection:
The American Institute of Physics http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html

The American Geophysical Union
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positions/climate_change2008.shtml

The American Meteorological Society
http://www.ametsoc.org/amsnews/2007climatechangerelease.pdf

National Academies of Science
http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change_2008_final.pdf

The American Association for the Advancement of Science
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2007/0218am_statement.shtml

Please don't mistake these for actual science, they are press releases and policy regarding climate change, but are based upon solid science. The science is absolutely amazing, and worrying.
gtc2007.png
YAY FOR HOCKEY FOR HOCKEY GRAFFFZ FUCKN NOOB
you what actually I'll quit before we arrive to reasonable conclusion ok? hail Algore, the man who has twenty jets, uses more electricity thatn three houses and drives your nemesis, the common suv.
wow, I can't imagine a biologist knowing..... not like animals they study need to live in varied climates... also we've apparently had ice age once so it's not too far out of the possible this could be another cooling cycle your name is pretty appropriate if you go through the world with that belief GLOBAL WARMING!?!
What happened before 1850?
Belcher1035
I'm not sure that I want to make further long posts on this Instructable, because I have no intention to derail it any more than it has been. In fact I apologise for my posts which only occurred because of certain individuals who were spreading untruths.

I am NOT being accusatory, but in my experience, most people who are genuinely interested look for themselves, although it has to be said that it is difficult to know where to start. It is a sad truth that most (but not all) enquiries like this are not genuinely innocent inquiries for help or knowledge but in-fact deteriorate and mutate into being intentionally provocative and are troll-behaviour.

Back to your question: “What happened before1850?”
To be honest, I'm not absolutely sure.

Personally, I'd have to research this. If you are really interested in the answer to this question, I would recommend that you research this yourself. But I am happy to give you some pointers.

One good reason for suggesting that you research this yourself. is that I might not be being truthful, it is the nature of argument is that someone who is less knowledgeable can never win against the more knowledgeable, even if the expert is lying. There is a lot of bad information out there and most of it is funded by ExxonMobil, laundered by being disseminated by a large network of intermediary individuals (including some scientists) and organisations. Another, reason for self-reliance, is that I cannot possibly answer all potential questions. So a curious individual would be best advised to learn how to satisfy their own curiosity.

I try to avoid the intermediary sources and look at the science, but it has to be said that some science is pretty opaque to the non-specialist and the next-best choice is a non-political blog like www.realclimate.org (RC). RC is a not-for-profit site run by working climatologists, who demystify the science for the layman.
If you don't like RC, there are few AFAICT non-political alternatives.

A good place to start is http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
Lists of common (so-called) skeptical arguments can be found together with links to numerous sources of information.

Many sites that claim to “tell the truth about the climate” are in reality, thinly disguised sources of a venomous political ideology and serve a range of cleverly crafted climate fallacies, cherry-picked science, and barefaced lies, intended to deceive the unwary. Examples are www.john-daly.com, www.climatepolice.com and www.junkscience.com (at least two of these are funded to some extent by Exxon).

Science and politics do not mix! Politically motivated individuals often think they know better than the scientists, the truth is that they rarely do! Political interference with science deemed inconvenient is common.
Google political interference with science

Now back to your question:
It is useful to understand the background to early measurements.

The background to the above dataset is explained here:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT3_accepted.pdf

A more general background
Northern Hemisphere Surface Air Temperature Variations: 1851–1984
P.D. Jones, S.C.B. Raper, P.M. Kellyo, and T.M.L. Wigley
http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0450/25/2/pdf/i1520-0450-25-2-161.pdf

Travelling backwards in time, progressively earlier instrumental temperature measurements decline in coverage, resolution and accuracy and end in 1592 with the invention of the thermometer by Galileo.

CET
Central England Temperature is representative of a roughly triangular area of the United Kingdom enclosed by Bristol, Lancashire and London. The monthly series begins in 1659, and is the longest available instrumental record of temperature in the world. Now CET is clearly not global.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/obsdata/cet.html

It is reasonable to deduce that temperature measurements before a certain date cannot rely upon instrument measurement and must be derived from proxy measurements. Proxy measurements are imperfect, but the evidence obtained so far are in good agreement.

IPCC WG1 AR4 Report
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

Historical Overview
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch01.pdf

Paleoclimate
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch06.pdf
Page 467, Fig. 6.10 Past temperature reconstructions, going back ~2000 years.

I hope this helps you, but you really are on your own, apart from guidance you can obtain here and there.

If you really get stuck, you can contact me through Instructables.
BnryZombie5 years ago
None of the global warming arguments are based on scientific facts. The true fact of the mater is economic gain by so called "experts". They only want to perpetuate their grant funding. This grant money is also put forth by special interest groups. These groups need these reports to fuel their scare tactics. The "End of the Earth". Everytime the earth has faced a global event it has "healed" itself. Did you know that most of of our oxygen comes from the ocean? Don't get me wrong trees do provide a good amount as well. 65 million years ago the earth was covered with a lot more water than it is now. The temperatures were higher on average than they were now. Can you tell me what made it so hot back then? Was there Cars and huge factories then? No Just plants and animals. It might be correct that an ice age happens every 100,000 years. But if you add all of the years the earth has been heating since the last ice age end. Then calculate a slop of temperature increase over the last 200 years (years since the "real industrial age") and add the current output of greenhouse gases produced by man you see an increase in temperature of 0.068% per year to come by human contribution. In fact the current rate of temperature increase is one degree every century. Fact 1890 the average tempature for the whole year was 14.0 degrees Celsius, 57.20 fahrenheit. In 2008 the average temperature was 14.6 degrees celsius, 58.28 fahrenheit. One whole degree fahrenheit in 118 years time.
Sonoffar6 years ago
For some time I have conducted a study of the Warmer / Not Warmer debate. At this time the Warmers are in the majority, but this appears to be changing rapidly. Joe Blow is realizing that if his government does the tax and spend routine that all governments do in order to correct GW he, Joe Blow, is back to a pre-industrial revolution life style. On the other hand there is considerable profit potential for the heads up investor or entrepreneur if current suggested corrections are implemented. I have a solution. It might even make an Instructable. Those who fear the results of GW could simply remove themselves from what they see as a terrible spiral of destruction. A sort of a getting out while the getting is good. All the rest simply live on and take your chances. The population reduction may even slow or reverse the presumed GW and end of the earth. Better yet there are large areas of unpopulated land in the Northern Hemisphere. We could all just begin a slow migration to better living, as our ancestors did. A lack of electricity may make the creation of an Instructable somewhat difficult however.
I agree here... GW/GCC is a scam and a religion for the tree huggers. It takes the same leap of faith that recognized religion ask. There is no science to support it. Follow the money. It is all aimed at hyping up average dimwitted people into screaming something has to be done. Then taxes go up Al Gore gets rich flying around in his incredibly large jets. These people are incredibly ego centric to think that man is that significant a force on nature. The planet warms and cools cyclically. Currently we are in a cooling cycle. The average temp for the earth has actually fallen over the last 10 years. Man contributes less than 1% to the overall scheme of things. There is a primary LAW of nature that says "Matter can neither be created or destroyed it only changes from one form to another". Everything on the planet has always, and will always be here. (with the exception of some meteorites and astroids) Mostly all of the pollutants we put into the air falls back to the ground as grim. It's heavier than air. Look at your car in the city after a particularly dry evening, it's covered in pollutants. As for CO2, It is also heavier than air. Fill an empty aquarium with it and you can float a tinfoil boat on the surface. Don't get me wrong... I don't think we should go willy-nilly about polluting the planet and using the resources indiscriminately. We do need to be better stewards of what we have. I'm just saying don't get all caught up in the hype. If you are interested in helping, find out the facts for your self. Study both sides of the argument and make better choices for your self and your family. Don't just go regurgitating what the fearmongers are telling you. By the way... the pictures above with the Arctic bigger and smaller happen every year. It's called summer and winter. Watch "Deadliest Catch" on Discovery Channel. The ice pack can move miles a day as it freezes. And... Polar Bears like it warmer. They don't have to go as far to find food.
cavingboy925 years ago
It is not Global Warming. It Is Global Climate Change. Some parts of the world are getting colder, while other parts are getting warmer
wenpherd5 years ago
where did you abuat gw?
Weissensteinburg (author)  wenpherd5 years ago
?
globul warming
miols5 years ago
i cant wait for conservatives to eat you!
Weissensteinburg (author)  miols5 years ago
Are you kidding? Have you read the rest of the comments?
JusCoz7 years ago
Wow, such controversy. I agree Weissensteinburg, this one received far more comments than the hot dog cooker, although these are less entertaining, (and far more regurgitated). I just think that the reality no one can deny is that humans haven't figured out a way to co-exist without clearly defined boundaries. Life will continue to move forward as it will, regardless of what Anderson Cooper tells us. If we want to irradicate the cancer on this planet, it would require mass genocide, not compact florescence. It won't be until a concensus is reached to stop "wanting it now, wanting it good, and wanting it cheap (REAL CHEAP)" that we see a turn around. Glad to see moral and ethical beings still exist though, even if that just means a bunch of guilty white people get together online to discuss what EVERYONE ELSE is doing wrong.
JusCoz You may well by right that life will continue to move forward. Presumably, you mean by evolution. It is unlikely that mankind will eradicate all life on earth. But it seems perfectly possible for mankind to render the earth unsuitable for most life, including humans. Humans are only one species, one that has reached plague proportions. We are apparently consuming resources at three times the rate which is sustainable. Have you noticed the other two earths anywhere? Regardless of Anderson Cooper, it is important to recognise that action to combat carbon emissions is vital. We can do enough without genocide. If genocide was an option, who would choose? I suspect that if democratically chosen, then the most wasteful individuals would be selected first. If you see one of my earlier posts this would be: Emissions per Capita Tonnes United States 20.1 Canada 18.3 Australia/New Zealand 17.7 Russia 11.7 South Korea 10.4 Japan 9.9 OECD Europe 8.2 The per capita average is ~ 7.8 Your suggestion that there is an element of hypocrisy among the posters, may or not be true. What is evidently true, is that unless one lives a zero-carbon life, then one is part of the problem. I suspect that includes almost everyone likely to be reading this. Another truth is that another problem is that emissions grow with the world population, Hopefully population growth can be stabilised without war or genocide. (I am not suggesting either as a last resort). Let's hope that with voluntary / compulsory reductions in carbon emissions, via energy efficiency, insulation and better technology, we are able to meet the 87% reductions required by 2050 to achieve only a 2 degree global temperature rise! Yes, 87% reduction! That means using only 13 % of our current energy requirements!
totally_screwed, The replacement and protection of our precious bodily fluids is the solution required.
OK... simple science.....does everyone remember Highschool chemistry...
Here is a process that is simple and is already functional now..ready to use and as you will see most of your items around your house were created and powered by this very process or a variation of it...
C02 levels?///??Hmmm...well arguing whether they are increasing or not is pointless...I say create your own non polluting fuel/power at home and kill two birds with one stone...and while your at it...think bigger....
how about 7 with one blow
A simple process that every product around you right now was probably created by
yet why is this not being used to combat C02 levels...I think its better to ect that question to your local politician, as if they know anything about anything ....be warned though you may get a few strange cars and phone taps if you ask this particular question..

I have at home Several solar power Electrolyser( a big one!!) to produce Hydrogen on demand...Home built very efficient...
I got sick of hearing people whinging about Co2 levels......My advice is
act for yourself....
the old line " 7 with one blow..."

Want to never pay for fuel/ power again....?

One device...many applicationss...based on a system that is already
happening in the natural world....one that the industrial world has used since its inception to create the product s needed

Ion

Blah blah

its just that we have so many little engines
in the world busy making heat....do an experiment at home...
put 10 motors inside a closed box and watch the temp rise...
Why do you think computers have exhaust fans...
its not the co2 its the heat of so many billions of engines ....
There is a way.....
The internal combustion engine ICE when created in 1838 or there abouts was powered by water electroloysis...then some clever cookie decided that they couldnt have people running around just having free transport..
Way too much freedom for the government to handle....
so they decided to use a substance that they could charge you for and also
while they were at it..a substance that damages the engine so badly that you need to get regular services to maintain the exceedingly poor state of combustion that is found when you use that particular fuel..
and to top it off burns so inefficiantly that up to 40% of the fuel you pay good money for goes out the exhaust unused to pollute our lungs and water etc
I am talking about Petrol here...
No need to think really hard about it...its simple business..
If you could figure way to delude people into paying for something they dont really need then you have a guaranteed source of income ...
and then if you create all kinds of scenarios that potentially threaten the supply of said product then then you can ask any price you like for it..
Basic premise of business....create a demand (Advertising)...feed it (product) then raise the price( income)

Save time and money on energy / fuel ...make it at home
and reduce Co2 levels yourself.....If I can do this and I have only High school education and a creative brain...
Its all about asking the right questions
dont look where the finger is pointing...rather what the other hand hiding..

why the big wigs arent really doing anything about the problem.......its simple really
Ok check these out....do your research kids...and build it....real simple
Save money ...never pay for fuel or power again....and create your own
chem lab factory in your back yard....
make any chemical or compound you light and figure it out...
just be nice and dont hurt anyone..or create bombs....bombs although fun are
guaranteed to get unwanted attention turn in your direction
Waiting for the Government to do something is pointless
The truth is that the gov only wants your money so they can build more weapons and buy extra gear for their mansions...I say build your own mansion..and help out every one you know......Free yourself from the yoke of
slavery that we all allow from ignorance
its called "uninformed consent."
google that if you like

its your planet dudes...do you want a dead one or a cool living one
ok enuff preaching.....heres the links to get you started...
Remember...Keep it Simple Sweetheart

Einstein said that all the best ideas are simple but no more than that..

just do your research and then build your own multi tasking machine that
produces power/water/fuel/Chemicals
Geez i ramble a bit too much really...so anyway to the actual stuff you can build
Link 1 for Co2 reduction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_hydroxide
do the math...
link 2 for electrolysis or read a highskool chemistry book
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis
then read about
Ultra violet light effect on electrolysis
and then variable Harmonic frequency modulation..
or just you tube Sololuminescence
Stanley meyer or
The Joe cell...have a laugh and enjoy your self..
and never stop learning.....

Truth & Will

Ninja Wombats are cool
It's very easy to ignore you when you don't make sense. You have to remember that people such as myself (or the general public) don't always know a lot about science, therefore we don't understand all of your technical wording in there. We usually understand all the basics of grade 9 science. One thing about your machine there, one of the chemicals you are using includes Lye. Lye is nearly impossible to get in Canada now unless you have major connections in the black market. The government has taken it off of the store shelves and has stopped companies from manufacturing it in commercial use because it is causing environmental problems with ecosystems. And I agree, Ninja Wombats are cool
were's china on that chart?
Gambit Pumpkin$6 years ago
It is Per Capita, which means per person in the area. So China, having more people with only slightly more pollution will still have less Per Capita. That is why Canada is so high up on the charts. We have so much heavy industry and only 32 million people.
Pumpkin$ Gambit6 years ago
ya just make sure that the lable "per capita" is not changed :)
MMMmmm, I love statistics! Even if 4 out of 5 stats are just made up on the spot! Lol! I agree totally screwed, that humans do have an obligation, individually as well as as a whole to try and undue the damage we have wrought upon this Delicate Ethereal Sphere. What I guess I managed to lose in the translation of my previous post was exactly where I stand.

I would never condone Genocide, so let's scratch that off the list. I only mentioned it to help people realise the magnitude of this problem. If global warming is as bad as certain people would have us beleive, then I suppose the powers that be will continue to keep people in the dark for as long as possible. Ironically for our own good, since human behaviour is irratic enough, without mention of armaggedon. (the apocalyptic event, not movie)

What I think that everyone is going to have to agree upon is that there is no way it's going to be easy. Like any other addiction, our first stage of denial is drawing to a close, and it's probably the easiest stage.

According to our brightest minds, by the year 2050 we can expect our population to be anywhere from 8 to 11 billion people. Combine that with the exessive strain added by new disease, increased poverty and added tension as world power shifts from the west back towards the east, the likelyhood that we will meet an 87% reduction in global emissions is proposterous.

I can hear your mind turning right now, considering how far we've come in modernizing energy wasting appliances. We've devised new ways to power our devices, and certainly our overall KNOWLEDGE alone should make it easy to acheive such a lofty goal.

But consider how many new people are getting computers every day, how many people are hooking up their cells, their TV's and DVR's...China alone will no doubt consume more energy than all other countries combined, as their currency surges, and more and more people there are moving above the poverty line.

And what about that poverty line? What ever happened to saving the whales? I must say, for all their muster, a tree huggers attention span is frightfully short lived.

It won't be until we can bring everyone in the world the amenities we take for granted at an emission rate one tenth of that we expect for our own daily lives, that a balance can be acheived.

As an analogy, it's as though 30% of the earth's population got addicted to X and has called a global intervention for their problem. Meanwhile, the other 70%!! are sitting around going "what are we doing here?", or "I'm not addicted yet, but if I want to try it, why not? They did it!" Realistically, it won't be global warming, but good 'ol Hubris that turns this planet into a bubbling mass of magmatic goo, and deep sea-vent shrimp will eat platters of crispy humans with a side of marinera.
JusCoz
Whether or not the necessary 87% energy reduction is difficult, it's essential! The alternative is dangerous climate change! Together with the side-effect of increasing atmospheric CO2 levels - ocean acidification, which poses a second major threat to the ocean life.

Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13314

You denigrate the tree huggers's attention span, but you are mistaken, it's just that these stories have largely dropped out of the media. The tree huggers are still active. Much of this is now mainstream!

For example, the save the whales campaign was mostly successful, most whaling was stopped and depleted populations have been recovering. But baleen whales are now threatened by global warming, which reduces the krill stocks.

I think you are being disingenuous, the world's poor will bear the brunt of climate change. They have not been forgotten!
mjbonnie6 years ago
What is the ideal temperature of the planet?
Pumpkin$6 years ago
Congress is moving quickly to pass a $1.2 trillion Global
Warming Tax that is based on unfounded science and could
cripple our economy. A vote is expected before summer.

I just signed a petition and am asking you to join me.
Please go here:

http://www.grassfire.org/106/petition.asp?PID=16756291&NID=1
tony stark6 years ago
EVERYTHING IS GOING WRONG! WORLD HUNGER, WAR, GLOBAL WARMING, EXTINCTION, MONEY, WILDFIRES, FLOODS, HURRICANES, TORNADOS, DISEASE, SICKNESS, CANCER, AND CAR CRASHES ETC.! Next, thing we know the military is going to be shooting and blowing up mushrooms! Literally people are hurting people as a sport in boxing, wrestling etc.! It'll take so long to get strait if it ever does! People should be more concerned about everything! In comic books and video games the villain is usually trying to destroy the world but basically we're doing that already! Nasa is using so much fuel for there rockets, planes, cars, computers, and training. The only thing that they use that uses solar panels is the space station. It's not just Nasa it's all of us! There are over 10 billion people on this planet and the number is only going to go up and we don't have unlimited supplys of fuel, the only thing unlimited that could power every thing is solar power! Solar panels are expensive and thing only take in inferred light, thats not even a quarter of the light the Sun puts out so the solar panels produce not even a quarter of electricity as it could be doing! I could be typing about this forever, but I have better things to do! Oh, and by the way nice Instructable!
lol tony, for some reason instructables sent me your comment instead of sending it to Weissensteinburg!
mystazsea6 years ago
OK... simple science.....does everyone remember Highschool chemistry...
Here is a process that is simple and is already functional now..ready to use and as you will see most of your items around your house were created and powered by this very process or a variation of it...
C02 levels?///??Hmmm...well arguing whether they are increasing or not is pointless...I say create your own non polluting fuel/power at home and kill two birds with one stone...and while your at it...think bigger....
how about 7 with one blow
A simple process that every product around you right now was probably created by
yet why is this not being used to combat C02 levels...I think its better to ect that question to your local politician, as if they know anything about anything ....be warned though you may get a few strange cars and phone taps if you ask this particular question..

I have at home Several solar power Electrolyser( a big one!!) to produce Hydrogen on demand...Home built very efficient...
I got sick of hearing people whinging about Co2 levels......My advice is
act for yourself....
the old line " 7 with one blow..."

Want to never pay for fuel/ power again....?

One device...many applicationss...based on a system that is already
happening in the natural world....one that the industrial world has used since its inception to create the product s needed

Ion

Blah blah

its just that we have so many little engines
in the world busy making heat....do an experiment at home...
put 10 motors inside a closed box and watch the temp rise...
Why do you think computers have exhaust fans...
its not the co2 its the heat of so many billions of engines ....
There is a way.....
The internal combustion engine ICE when created in 1838 or there abouts was powered by water electroloysis...then some clever cookie decided that they couldnt have people running around just having free transport..
Way too much freedom for the government to handle....
so they decided to use a substance that they could charge you for and also
while they were at it..a substance that damages the engine so badly that you need to get regular services to maintain the exceedingly poor state of combustion that is found when you use that particular fuel..
and to top it off burns so inefficiantly that up to 40% of the fuel you pay good money for goes out the exhaust unused to pollute our lungs and water etc
I am talking about Petrol here...
No need to think really hard about it...its simple business..
If you could figure way to delude people into paying for something they dont really need then you have a guaranteed source of income ...
and then if you create all kinds of scenarios that potentially threaten the supply of said product then then you can ask any price you like for it..
Basic premise of business....create a demand (Advertising)...feed it (product) then raise the price( income)

Save time and money on energy / fuel ...make it at home
and reduce Co2 levels yourself.....If I can do this and I have only High school education and a creative brain...
Its all about asking the right questions
dont look where the finger is pointing...rather what the other hand hiding..

why the big wigs arent really doing anything about the problem.......its simple really
Ok check these out....do your research kids...and build it....real simple
Save money ...never pay for fuel or power again....and create your own
chem lab factory in your back yard....
make any chemical or compound you light and figure it out...
just be nice and dont hurt anyone..or create bombs....bombs although fun are
guaranteed to get unwanted attention turn in your direction
Waiting for the Government to do something is pointless
The truth is that the gov only wants your money so they can build more weapons and buy extra gear for their mansions...I say build your own mansion..and help out every one you know......Free yourself from the yoke of
slavery that we all allow from ignorance
its called "uninformed consent."
google that if you like

its your planet dudes...do you want a dead one or a cool living one
ok enuff preaching.....heres the links to get you started...
Remember...Keep it Simple Sweetheart

Einstein said that all the best ideas are simple but no more than that..

just do your research and then build your own multi tasking machine that
produces power/water/fuel/Chemicals
Geez i ramble a bit too much really...so anyway to the actual stuff you can build
Link 1 for Co2 reduction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_hydroxide
do the math...
link 2 for electrolysis or read a highskool chemistry book
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis
then read about
Ultra violet light effect on electrolysis
and then variable Harmonic frequency modulation..
or just you tube Sololuminescence
Stanley meyer or
The Joe cell...have a laugh and enjoy your self..
and never stop learning.....

as for saving whales.....I am totally up for that...
dont wait around for others to do that
build a hydrogen fuel vtol powered jet plane ( about 6 months work with the right tools) and go save them yourself...
Truth & Will
Ninja Wombats are cool
mystazsea Are you seriously suggesting that global temperatures are increasing because of the heat liberated from internal combusion engine use? That seems to be what you're saying, but your post wasn't terribly clear.
PS118 mystazsea6 years ago
Hey JusCoz. I really like your writing style, but I must disagree. CFL is really humanity's last hope. My personal solution to global warming is to buy into all the media hype I can and get swept along by the science of parisain politics. I'll stay up all night fretting over CFL bulbs and carbon footprints. That (and holding hands across America) is the only REAL hope to make the world perfect and happy forever. Al Gore told me so.
Even with the typo, you get an A+.
Dash-27 years ago
Great guide! Except for this one: "If you drive a pick up truck, leave the tail gate down, to decrease wind resistance" Mythbusters proved this wrong because with the gate up, there is a vortex of air in the bed and the wind flys right over it.
Weissensteinburg (author)  Dash-27 years ago
Really? Thanks, ill change that.
With the tail gate up, most of the air goes right over the tail gate, with it down, the air pushes on the bed, causing slower speeds and more gas being used. View this diagram I made.
http://static.instructables.com/orig/FMP/Z9KW/F2ZL548Y/FMPZ9KWF2ZL548Y.jpg
(The add picture doesn't work..)

Oh, and Global Warming may not exist, but it doesn't hurt to live by these things!
too many chiefs and not enough indians... All this conjecture and wanking will only serve further debating and that leads to mass debating which is more wanking... Cmon you guys stop thinking ... Your heads and all the hot air coming out of your mouths is also causing global warming... if you want to change something ...do it.. Like my previous post...which I noticed was Ahem"Edited!-read censored!" The c02 problem could be fixed immediately and the Gov big wigs know it.. But as mentioned they are profiteering from all this co-fuffle and conjecture The real question should be why hasnt it been fixed... One solution to the reduction of co2 which is already availible to you..at home and industry...is Na OH sodium hydroxide... readily absorbs co2 from the air in vast quantities.... Read my previous post links... The co2 is not the problem....we could fix that over night if we wanted... We have the industry already in place to produce mega quantities of NaOH And it exist naturallly also... If you want to experiment with it yourself....set up your own geosphere at home and play with the co2 /NaOH phenomena yourselves...then you might ask the right questions... Dont be fooled by where every one is pointing ... while everyone looks the other way where the finger is being pointed.. The Gov does what ever it wants......behind closed doors... cmon guys and gals do the math connect the dots... Ask yourself why the gov never granted patent rights to the thousands of cool fission engines or for that matter variations on cold fusion... ..because if everyone knew that they didnt have to pay for electricity or fuel then all those lovely tax dollars that power the military production lines would encounter a monkey wrench You may think all you like...but until you act nothing is done.. do it yourself... yes cut your c02 footprint in half or greater if possible yes do what you can to spread the word.. but also ..never doubt for a moment that you have been deceived Being as nice as possible.....but stand firm...ask the right questions thats all you you have to do... when you hit the mark... you will know politicians squirm and and run to rhetoric when they know they are caught out lying....They have the facts but tell you otherwise...because if you knew what they knew , you should expect very soon to have your entire life monitored... and if that happens then you had better be better and smarter that they are... but thats enuff of that... id better get back to work;...I hear the big man is playing golf....
Ya, apparently it's more efficient to leave it up. It's hard to describe, but it makes since when you see the visuals.
Cryptonat6 years ago
Propaganda.
duck-lemon6 years ago
to say this you have to assume that global warming is because of the human race and it's actions onto the earth. If you want to stop global warming destroy the sun, then well be nice and cold... Dead, sure but we'll be cold.
I have a hybrid cars site to help spread the word on saving energy. But has anyone heard of ceramic thermal paint? It is an additive to your house paint which is supposed to save on heating / cooling costs on average of 30%
zachninme7 years ago
Actually... Global warming is the now disproved conjecture that an increase of CO2 levels in the atmosphere will cause an increase of global temperature.
zachninme
Actually...

Global warming is a vicious rumor put about by many thousands of scientists who have observed that the world is indeed warming!

The overwhelming majority of independent climatologists agree that the EVIDENCE shows that the cause of GW is NOT the sun or volcanoes, it is greenhouse gases of which the most important is CO2. CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere. Isotopic analysis shows this to be from combustion of fossil-fuels and is therefore man-made. Other GHGs are also increasing as a result of human activities.

Observations match closely the climate models, which are based upon the physical behaviour of the various components in the atmosphere, on land and in the ocean.

Please make a reasonable attempt to learn your facts before mindlessly repeating the lies and propaganda spread by the fossil-fuel companies and big business, often 'laundered' via so-called 'independent' organizations in Washington or elsewhere.

Big business want to delay carbon taxes for as long as possible to boost their profits. Scientists want emissions reduced and controlled,because they are alarmed at what the science is telling them.

The question is:
Who to trust?
Big business with their vested interest?
Or independent scientific experts? There are lots of them!

Ignore the small number of scientists who get paid to promote the fuel-lobby's lies.

Common-sense would indicate that we should give more credence to the independent experts, than the commercial interests.

We should also consider what is the worst that could happen in each case.

1) We ignore the scientists' warnings and carry-on as normal:
a) If the scientists are wrong and catastrophe is not approaching, we pay normal taxes and the commercial interests will carry-on making huge profits.
b) If the scientists are correct and catastrophe is approaching, WE ARE SCREWED!

2) We take whatever action is required to avert catastrophic climate change:
c) If the scientists are wrong and catastrophe is not approaching, we will pay higher taxes and the commercial interests will make smaller profits. We survive.
d) If the scientists are correct and catastrophe is approaching, we will pay higher taxes and the commercial interests will make smaller profits. We survive.

Common-sense indicates that we should avoid 1) because it risks disaster, and opt for 2) where the worst that can happen is life gets more expensive.

Seems like a no-brainer! Why do you have a problem with this? Is it so hard? DOH!

You are advised to treat any GW related article that has an author listed in:
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/Climate_Science/CliSciFrameset.html and click on Contrarians

and

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf

as very probably fossil-fuel company propaganda.
I second
Amen to that!
All i know is the green house gasses are part.
cstrike pwner If you want to learn more about the science, you would be well advised to visit www.realclimate.org. It's all about climate science and it's run by climatologists. From there you can find links to the original science and other websites.about climate. I warn you though, the science can be quite challenging at times, but you own it to yourself to learn the facts about climate change and what it might do to the planet. Sadly there are too many who THINK they understand climate change, or due to political ideology dismiss it out-of-hand as hype or a left-wing hoax. These people are deluding themselves and think they are much more intelligent than is in-fact the case. If only these people would read the science, rather than the popular media, they would know what the science actually says, rather than the distorted and skewed reports in the press. I am convinced that any intelligent person that reads the science will conclude, "how can I reduce my carbon footprint?" and "how can I convince others to do likewise?"
Yea, i think i'll watch the dicovery channel.
I see you like sarcasm... My definition, (minus the "disproved" part), was the definition when they hypothesized global warming. Would you call "Global Cooling" a theory that it was happening, no. Also, since there are really 2 sides here, the overdone media, as well as the (in your opinion, not mine) overdone commercial industry. You should also note that there are some commercial industries that are making money off of global warming. And you're hypothetical scenarios. Would you suggest that we should have tried harder to stop Global Cooling in the 60's? No. So that statistic shouldn't be taken into consideration. My stance on global warming, is "in the middle". I'm not saying that we're perfectly fine, but I'm saying its not our fault, and its no where near as bad as they think. What am I doing? I'm being conservative, but not preventive. The reason why I'm so against it, is I'm against people for it! (If that makes sense) I'd also like to ask you, how do you think they measure past CO2 levels? You probably know, ice core samples. Good job. Now why do you think that the CO2 doesn't diffuse through the ice? After all, the year "rings" on a core are small. Well, you can't really expect CO2 to stay in place over 1,000's of years.
zachninme
I have done some research on the diffusion of gases in ice-cores and based upon my limited understanding, it appears that once the ice has formed that's it. There is diffusion through snow and firn, but if the ice is in good condition there is no problem. There have been cases where the ice-core condition has been suspect and the data have been discarded.

In practical terms, diffusion only occurs down a gradient of concentration.

First Principles A
Horizontal diffusion outwards in a lateral direction, will be exactly balanced-out, by diffusion in the reverse direction. THIS CAN BE IGNORED.

Thermally-caused vertical diffusion through pores in firn (old snow) is isotopically selective and the isotopic enrichment is used as a measure of abrupt climate change. (1)

First Principles B
Vertically, diffusion is likely to be almost the same as horizontal because the year to year atmospheric changes are minor, again acting to limit diffusion, although at greater depths the amounts of time available seem likely to increase diffusion effects. Diffusion up or down, if significant, will tend reduce the resolution. It is also reasonable to infer that any diffusion effects will only tend to reduce year-to-year differences, thereby tending to mask rapid climate change and reduce resolution.
From the ice-core record, where rapid changes occur at considerable depth, this would indicate that any through-ice diffusion effects are minimal, or that the climate changes are even more abrupt than the record would seem to indicate, or a mix of the two.

Negligible fractionation rates and therefore diffusion rates are confirmed for larger molecules including CO2 through firn, presumably since ice is denser it can be expected to be less prone to diffusion. (2)

I identified some studies regarding gas diffusion through ice, but could not access them without a subscription. The detail in the abstracts was insufficient.

My experience is that the climatologists have already thought of every conceivable possibility and then some!

1
Ice-core evidence of abrupt climate changes, Alley

2
Evidence for molecular size dependent gas fractionation in firn air derived from noble gases, oxygen, and nitrogen measurements,
Huber, Beyerle, Leuenberger, Schwander, Kipfer, Spahni, Severinghaus,Weiler

Both are available free
Zachninme
The media are prone to hype and are therefore unreliable. The propaganda from the fossil-fuel industry is all pervasive since it emanates from so-proclaimed 'independent' organizations such as the Cato Institute, George Marshall Institute, and many others that receive funding from that very same fossil-fuel industry. This is typically disseminated to the public via The Wall Street Journal, Time, NewsWeek & various right-wing outlets. Nowadays that includes the web

Climate change was not properly understood in the 60s, even in the mid 70s, climate models were in their infancy. So it would have been impossible to quantify any predictions. In-fact, during the 70s, when contrarians make their fatuous claims that there were predictions being made of a forthcoming ice-age, no corroborating scientific papers have ever been identified. There were predictions, but they were equivocal about warming or cooling. Clearly there was a trend of cooling from the 40's to the 70's, but this was caused largely by sulphate aerosols from the post WW2 industrial boom.

It is known that man is burning fossil-fuels, the estimates of carbon emissions tally with the growing CO2 in the atmosphere, the isotopic analysis shows the CO2 is man-made. The climate models are based upon the behaviour of the atmosphere and also can model other events with good and increasing accuracy. The warming is in-line with the various GHGs in the atmosphere.

The climatologists think the GW trend is alarming, but increasing temperatures are not of themselves the only cause of concern. They bring the risk of releases of vast reserves of methane from methane clathrates, which are icy deposits. Because they are icy, they are highly temperature sensitive. Methane is an important GHG. This threatens to stimulate further massive releases and a runaway greenhouse effect. Such an event happened about 55 M y ago. It's called the PETM or Paleocene Eocene Thermal maximum. It was followed by a mass extinction. It could happen again and if it does, it will be very bad news!

Some people seem to have the belief that H. sapiens is immune from extinction! This is not true!

Regarding CO2 and ice-core methodology, I suggest that you ask a climatologist. CO2 and ice-core methodology hasn't even made it onto the list yet! I would suggest www.realclimate.org, but you need to read the faqs first, and be careful, you are at risk of getting some science! My experience has been that when a contrarian says the climatologists haven't even thought of xxx. It's always proved to be lies, they always have and it's been documented and sometimes it's been known about for decades.

My very rough and unresearched first principles approach is that CO2 Mwt=44 is more massive than H2O Mwt=18 and from the kinetic theory of gases, it's likely to move significantly less than the H2O molecules. Even disregarding Van de Waals forces & etc, it seems likely to stay put.

One gets very cynical about the contrarians, many have told outrageous lies. An example is Patrick Michaels who in testimony in congress in 1998 deleted the bottom two curves of Hansen et al 1988, in order to give the misleading impression that the models were unreliable. I'm sure that lying to congress is a serious offence, he should be punished. See http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
Of course there other examples.

I am not a climatologist and I am struggling slowly through the science. I have read some unsettling contrarian works that almost had me convinced until I sat-down and did the research and bit by bit I saw the cunning lies and deceit.

What you must remember, is that opinions don't count! It's actions that matter! The problem is that the fossil-fuel lobby don't have to be right, they only have to convince enough people that the scientists are divided. Which is why they disseminate their lies.

Richard Feinman said “nature cannot be fooled” and he was right!
(I'll address your paragraphs with the equivalent paragraph of mine, so the following paragraph corresponds to the first paragraph of your post) I understand that. I was trying to say that I'm not under influence the "exxon-scientists", and I can weigh that in. I also, for some reason, kept bringing up Global Cooling. I really don't know why! Probably because it was a "natural" thing, as opposed to nuclear winter. And it isn't scary to talk about, and its known, unlike eugenetics. Our climate models are still not accurate enough, however, to predict climate. Therefore, you should not be using these models as evidence. And increasing accuracy isn't good enough. Even if simulations were able to predict down to a degree, thats not accurate enough, considering that the fuss is over an even smaller increment. That paragraph rests on the fact that the temperature is rising, which is currently under debate between us. I dont think that! Why do you have condescending towards me? If I was afraid of some science, I wouldn't have responded. -- My point on that wasn't that its impossible, just that those measurements have tolerance. They say so right on the graphs/charts themselves. (Answered in above) I'm not exactly sure of the point of this... as you should always be cynical about everything. Ditto, except my research has shown lies/deceit on both parts. Did you write that line? Its oddly hypocritical. If opinions didn't count, we wouldn't have this debate, and neither of us would act differently. I followed your links and read them, adding to my "knowledge base". Opinions influence actions, which influence opinions. Its a circle. And I agree, they don't have to be right, they just have to convince. I don't get why you brought that quote up, really its contradictory to your argument. Since after all, in your stance, nature would be no different than you. But if it wasn't happening, (which is not my view, persay), then nature would know better, and not be fooled...
Zachninme First of all re condescension – none was intended, it's just that answers are rarely simple and many people, contrarians particularly, seem afraid of science and as I am only too aware, there are no quick answers to some questions. As I stated, apart from a gut feeling about the CO2 in the ice-cores, I have not investigated this yet and do not know. It may be a short answer or a long one, I have no idea. Before I proceed any further The man-made cause of GW is agreed by the overwhelming majority of climatologists world-wide. This is reflected by all the major scientific bodies who have published statements acknowledging this fact and calling for urgent action to combat GW by reducing emissions. GW and its effects – rising temperatures, rising sea-levels & etc are the subject of numerous scientific papers. You claim to occupy the middle-ground! That is between the science based majority and the nay sayers of the contrarian camp who are almost entirely, if not entirely funded, directly or indirectly by fossil-fuel interests & big business. Since the contrarians, if their “science” was good science, would be publishing in peer-reviewed journals like Nature, but they aren't doing so. The contrarian camp are not publishing science except in the media or partisan “Energy and Environment”, a skeptic's / contrarian journal for failed science and scientists. Or their fossil-fuel interests & big business funded propaganda laundering self-proclaimed “independent” organizations. Where & what is your source of independent information that refutes or undermines mainstream science's claims of rising global temperatures and anthropogenic CO2?
Finally someone that nows what there talking about! We do have a responsibility to take care of our environment but people should also know whats really happening and the media shouldn't use scare tactics and mis portray science to get people to change their ways.
Finally someone that knows what they're talking about! (We're so rare in this world :P)
joey25426676 years ago
yeah well mushrooms take in oxygen and put out C02
really?
Weissensteinburg (author)  Pumpkin$6 years ago
They're fungi.
i know
Weissensteinburg (author)  joey25426676 years ago
..well that's why they produce co2, they aren't in the same category as oxygen producing "green plants".
oh I see...
yup
Weissensteinburg (author)  joey25426676 years ago
Mushrooms are fungi.
yeah I know
wipecarbon6 years ago
WipeCarbon campaign designed to kick-start a million pledges from all of us which will reduce emissions of Carbon and help us to reduce the side effects in Global Warming. We are not looking for anything life changing here. Small commitments will not cost you a cent but they will make a big difference! How much does it cost to switch off your lights when you’re not using them? Or to switch off your electronics when they are not in use? These are just some of the small habits which we hope to inspire. A million of these small commitments is a big impact. Its that simple. Our initiative will surely make more and more people to drive towards it and take this pledge Million of these commitments will make it a ocean and create a beautiful globe joining hands with us. www.wipecarbon.com
Chiefv036 years ago
First, remember that with time, all scientific theories are proven wrong. Not enough historic data is available to suggest a cure for the problem as of now. The treaty that got so much media coverage had nothing to do with correcting the problem, but rather purchasing the rights for CO2 emission. No question that the planet is getting warmer, if it hadn't New York would be under a glacier, but the same knowlagable group who made this prediction, have blamed it on many sources.
Weissensteinburg (author)  Chiefv036 years ago
with time, all scientific theories are proven wrong.

That, is a scientific theory..and according to you, it will eventually be proven wrong, meaning, not all scientific theories are eventually proven wrong.
Better start now... HELPING THE WORLD!
dchall87 years ago
what I'm worried about is Plutonian warming, Neptunian warming, and Martian warming.

Last summer we added two rooms to our house. The contractor installed all incandescent bulbs. I replaced 12 of his incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescents and so far I've only had to replace 25% of them versus none of the incandescents. I would seriously disagree with the notion that the CFs last longer. I'm not sure what the manufacturer's test conditions are but in practice, the CFs break faster than any other bulb I've tried. Plus I have to drive 60 miles round trip to properly recycle the CFs because they have mercury in them. I'm hoping the price of LEDs comes down to something affordable before I go broke saving the world.

One of the purposes of our remodel last year was to put in new windows, insulation and reside the house. We had them put Tyvek on and tape the entire length of every edge of Tyvek carefully around the windows and doors. It really does make a difference in heating and cooling.

Air drying the laundry is a good idea if you live somewhere where clothes actually dry outdoors. Fortunately that is most of our country but not always within 100 miles of the Gulf of Mexico.

Low flow shower heads are a good idea but the current trend is to put six or eight shower heads in the shower. So whether you use low flow or not, try and use only one shower head.

Regarding gas mileage: I have not run these numbers all the way out but I think if you already own a car, no matter what the gas mileage is, buying another car only encourages the car manufacturers to make more cars. MAKING the cars is where all the energy gets used. Carpooling is where all the after sales savings comes from.

Ceiling fans waste air. Personal fans can actually cool you. I've tried a lot of fans but Vornado makes the best. I own five and at least one has been running 24/365 since 1995. They never wear out.

One summer in San Antonio I did not have air conditioning. I slept indoors in a Oaxaca style hammock (very open weave, wrap around) with a window exhaust fan at one end of the house and an open window at the other end of the house. I had to put the exhaust fan on a timer because by 2:00 am, I was freezing cold with the wind chill. So I had the fan turn off at 1:30 and come back on about 5:30 when it started to warm up again.

There are two low flow toilets on the market that really do use less water without having to flush and flush over again to wash everything away. These toilets have been redesigned rather than relying on parts from the old high flow toilets. Toto is the more expensive brand and the American Standard Cadet "3" are the two that work well. Another new technology in these toilets is the development of a ceramic glaze that prevents the growth of fungus and bacteria. Thus cleaning is easier when you have to do it.
dchall8 Regarding your lack of success with CFs. Are you on a supply that is shared with an industrial area? It's just that inductive spikes from heavy equipment might affect reliability. However, I have not seen this mentioned on the web. My experience with CFs is that they often last for eight or more years. The suggestion is to opt for quality makes, there are some economy makes that are particularly unreliable. If you've had problems with one brand it would be worth switching brands. If you suffer poor reliability across brands, then suspect voltage spikes on your supply. The pay-back time for a CF is typically only around 2 years, anything more is a bonus. You might consider recording the date of purchase & installation on the CFL with a marker-pen.
I am now trying Sylvania CFLs from Lowe's. I bought a 2-pack. One of the two arrived in a non-working condition, so I have to return both to get another 2-pack. Somehow I'm not surprised by this anymore. Because of this, keeping records is becoming a must. With incandescents you expect them to blow at any time. With the hype of CFLs you expect them to last. I am far from any industrial area. If you have not seen this mentioned on the web, is this just your hypothesis?
Yes it's my hypothesis, based upon the fact that some electronics is rather sensitive to supply-line spikes, and such spikes cannot improve reliability. I'm thinking of the ballast electronics. I have indirect experience of a work colleague whose lights were always failing, but those were incandescents. He was lucky to have them last for a month, sometimes only days. Different brands made no difference. There was no problem with other equipment though, which possibly undermines my theory. Mythbusters did a program featuring incandescents, CFs and LEDs. It seemed to be the frequency of switching that ruined incandescents & CFs, LEDs seemed unaffected. Yes I know it's not very scientific. The stress of starting the lamp repeatedly is likely to shorten its life. Probably best to leave it on, rather than keep on turning it on & off.
O.O Wow... Rock on totally_screwed, ROCK ON!
I'm curious at your concern regarding GW on Pluto, Neptune and Mars. The rest of your post was thoughtful and practical. Presumably this was intended either as humour, or alternatively a dig at those who are concerned about GW on Earth.

If it is the latter, this is clearly a half-baked attempt to simultaneously undermine the role of anthropogenic CO2 and other GHGs, while offering moral support to the unproven solar hypothesis.

Of your references, they referred to: Pluto; Not Neptune, but its moon,Triton; and Mars

Well, the evidence for GW on some of the planets is tenuous at best and certainly far from conclusive. AFAIK, there is currently no evidence of warming on Neptune, although it has increased in brightness. Triton is warming but the causes have not been determined, but the article suggests changes in albedo and not an increase in solar output.

What's causing warming on Mars?
The mean temperature of the Martian atmosphere is particularly sensitive to the strength and duration of hemispheric dust storms.

Solar radiation on Mars & Neptune are 36% and ~ 0.1% what Earth receives. Orbital periods for Mars 1.88 years / 687 days, Neptune 165 years and Pluto 248 years respectively.

The observations are too limited for proper conclusions to be drawn.

Neptune Warming?
Quote from Abstract
Although correlations between Neptune's brightness and Earth's temperature anomaly—and between Neptune and two models of solar variability—are visually compelling, at this time they are not statistically significant.., low formal statistical significance. If changing brightnesses and temperatures of two different planets are correlated, then some planetary climate changes may be due to variations in the solar system environment.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028764.shtml

Since, the fossil-fuel lobby are eager to prove the solar hypothesis and therefore disprove the man-made CO2 link, it is reasonable to infer that they have already fully explored the potential of Martian warming and have rejected it. Otherwise, they would fund numerous reports, doubtless authored by Baliunas & Soon. The lack of reports speaks volumes.

Whereas the evidence for GW on earth is well understood and the consensus is quite overwhelming.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26065-2004Dec25.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/306/5702/1686.pdf?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&author1=oreskes&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&fdate=//&tdate=//&resourcetype=HWCIT

The sharp increase in global temperatures on earth does not correlate with solar output. The sharp temperature rise of the earth of nearly 1 degree C since 1900 is '"significant"'. That warming is about 1/5 of the total warming of the globe from the depths of the last Major Ice Age (about 20,000 years ago) to present. Over the last century it's been about 50 times faster than it has been for the rest of the ~ 19 900 years!
Mmm, let me see, if plotted as a graph that would look just like a hockey stick! Not the same as the reconstructions, because these would be average trend lines and the reconstructions only cover the last millennium or so.

There is a strong correlation between the atmospheric concentrations of various gases and CO2 in particular and global warming. This correlation is supported by a mechanism - the infra-red activity of these gases in the atmosphere, which is why they are known as GHGs. The increase in CO2 concentrations is identifiably anthropogenic because of the different isotopic composition, which identifies its source from the combustion of fossil-fuels.

Solar hypothesis
The solar hypothesis is far from proven, nor has it been totally disproven, but the mechanism is unclear and more research is required. Solar irradiance is now well measured by satellite and has been declining slightly over the last few years as it moves towards a solar minimum. So a solar cause seems rather unlikely and any solar contribution looks rather minor at most. http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf

Another problem with the solar hypothesis, never overtly raised is that of climate sensitivity. Thus far, the proponents of the solar hypothesis have resorted to jiggery-pokery to get it to work!
"unproven solar hypothesis."
All hypotheses about catastrophic future global warming are unproven too, seeing as how it hasn't occurred yet. So if you are unwilling to accept conjecture of any kind, then you should stop worrying about any of this, on either side of the argument.

"The sharp increase in global temperatures on earth does not correlate with solar output."
Interestingly, it also does not correlate with CO2 output. Take a look at the following graph from NASA with CO2 emissions and global temperature. Note the 30-40 year period where temperture went down steadily and CO2 rose exponentially higher:
CO2 vs. temperature
smurfsahoy
No amount of ad nauseam repetition of flawed science will prove your case.

The reason why the solar hypothesis is unproven , is because it's unproven!
Especially since the sun output is at a minimum and the sun's out put has either been showing no trend, or reducing slightly for around two decades, depends upon the scientific article one refers to.

Regarding GW and its man-made nature I refer you to
The Discovery of Global Warming - http://www.aip.org/history/climate/

Regarding CO2 and temperature. You omit the fact that the cooling was caused by aerosols.
Completely disingenuous. Answered in my previous post.

Standard misleading contrarian claims. Widely debunked!
Smurfsahoy Quote All hypotheses about catastrophic future global warming are unproven too, seeing as how it hasn't occurred yet. So if you are unwilling to accept conjecture of any kind, then you should stop worrying about any of this, on either side of the argument. End quote Smurfsahoy Once again, you are wrong! How can anybody be so wrong, so often? While we can't be absolutely certain about the future, we can be fairly confident about the future under certain circumstances. This simulation of catastrophic future global warming, has been run on the whole earth simulator. OK, now you're going to ask - what's the whole earth simulator? It's planet earth! The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) ~55 million years ago! Accompanied by its very own mass extinction! No links this time! Just Google for it! There are lots of scientific references!
Oh, also, the consensus ion all of the links you have provided so far is always "that the globe is warming" or even "that humans are causing the globe to warm," etc. Two problems with such consensus: 1) It doesn't really tell us anything useful about public policy. Before we go and make a bunch of laws, we need to know a lot more than whether the globe is warming, or whether humans are causing it. First we need to know exactly in what ways the globe may or may not continue in its current trends. The concensus you cite says nothing about the future. After that, we need to know whether it is bad for the globe to warm (much more debate there, since a far greater number of people disagree with massive climate change than disagree with simple warming. El Nino also warms climates, for instance, and it actually has caused the state of California to net an overall PROFIT of billions of dollars, due to longer crop growing seasons.), and if so, then we also need to know whether we even have the means to stop it. If it is too expensive to possibly reverse, no matter what we do, then none of this matters. Let's say we can stop it though (just for sake of argument), we then need to further determine that it is WORTH it to stop it. If reversing global warming costs 300 trillion dollars over 10 years, then stopping it would put us in the stone age, and probably just as many people would die anyway due to our lack of ability to feed them and heat their homes without creating carbon emissions (and possibly pumping more energy on top of that to reverse things). In such a case, it would not be worth it, even if it was possible. ALL of these things have to be answered before any of it relates to public policy decisions. Gore and co. seem to just feel like they can skip past all of that relevant "logic" and assume their way to new laws. Totally irresponsible. 2) One of your main articles you cite to explain your position, the one that researched all of the scientific abstracts, was done by NEWSPAPER REPORTERS, not climate scientists. And it was horribly constructed. They went around searching for articles that use buzz words employed by global warming supporters. Obviously they're going to get those people's papers to come up... This was a meta study done by complete amateurs, in probably a few hours, using heavily biased methods. Pretty sad "evidence" of anything.
Smurfsahoy
You really have a problem with your facts! Every one has been wrong - so far! Are you a clone of Cheiron? You certain have the same problem with getting your facts right.

You have it all upside-down. The reason consensus is important, not because of consensus itself, but that it is because the overwhelming majority of climate scientists are convinced of the man-made causes of GW is because of the overwhelming weight of evidence. There is little if any peer-reviewed scientific evidence that GW is anything other than man-made.

1) Scientific consensus and evidence is not the same as policy. The Bush Administration has a real problem with science and has made great efforts to suppress inconvenient science and certainly does not base policy upon science.

See ww.ucsusa.org and follow the links for political interference. Examples are mercury as a toxin. Mercury levels from coal-fired power plants. Global warming. You name it!

Clearly policy should always be based upon good science. The science regarding GW and its man-made causes is irrefutable – there would need to be many thousands of peer-reviewed scientific reports to significantly undermine the science. There aren't!
The models – while imperfect but already good enough can tell us a great deal about possible warming scenarios. I refer you to my latest large post.

One of the problems of your fallacious arguments is that you assume that we have any alternative to halting man-made GW. There are significant reasons to believe that above a certain rise, the whole basis of our civilisation could collapse because of the narrow environmental range our infrastructure is able to cope with (world wide).

Try listening to this interview with Dr Chris Rapley, former Director of the British Antarctic Survey, now Director of the Science Museum in London.
http://www.electricpolitics.com/media/mp3/EP2007.08.31.mp3

quote
since a far greater number of people disagree with massive climate change than disagree with simple warming.
end quote
I don't know where you get your information. I suspect that there is no (peer-reviewed scientific) evidence for this claim.

However, I would suggest that mere opinions alone are insufficient. Only scientific evidence is useful and valid. It is known that much greater arming has occurred previously and there are good reasons to show that it could therefore reoccur. While this remains an area for research, there is good reason that we are nearing the tipping points that could lead the earth to returning to the same conditions. It seems unlikely that any large vertebrates including humans could survive in such a world, except in very small numbers, if at all.

2) If you had read the article about scientific consensus properly, you would have noticed that the article was not as you claim written by NEWSPAPER REPORTERS, but by the author of the original peer-reviewed scientific essay (Associate Professor Naomi Oreskes) with the aid of her scientifically-trained research assistants. Therefore your statement is demonstrably FALSE.

Her credentials were hidden at the end of the article
quote
The writer is an associate professor of history and director of the Program in Science Studies at the University of California.
End Quote

Oreskes is a historian of science trained to analyze and understand scientific arguments, their development, their progress, etc., and her specific expertise is in the history of earth science.

If you are interested there is an update to this:
http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/Oreskes2007.pdf

Even just assuming that Oreskes was wrong, where are all the thousands of those peer-reviewed, published scientific studies? Sorry – they aren't to be found!
I'm not going to go tit for tat with you on this. Clearly you have enough time on your hands to go around and provide 10x more rebuttal than the original message you're replying to. Nasa seems to think there is more solar radiation since 1970. And others have said..."Variations in the Sun's total energy output (luminosity) are caused by changing dark (sunspot) and bright structures on the solar disk during the 11-year sunspot cycle. The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years. In this Review, we show that detailed analysis of these small output variations has greatly advanced our understanding of solar luminosity change, and this new understanding indicates that brightening of the Sun is unlikely to have had a significant influence on global warming since the seventeenth century. Additional climate forcing by changes in the Sun's output of ultraviolet light, and of magnetized plasmas, cannot be ruled out. The suggested mechanisms are, however, too complex to evaluate meaningfully at present." So choosing to believe there is not enough evidence to prove anything, I'm staying out of it, other than to provoke the occasional comment.
The contractor installed all incandescent bulbs. I replaced 12 of his incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescents and so far I've only had to replace 25% of them versus none of the incandescents. I would seriously disagree with the notion that the CFs last longer.

I'm gonna say you bought low quality bulbs.... There's plenty of information on the internet about quality and feedback for CF's ;) I say this, because I did some homework before I bought my bulbs... I have had one ballast go bad @ 4 years (the bulb still worked though). The rest of the bulbs (5) have been living well for a little over 6.5 years.
Hmmm. What brand did you use and where'd you get them? Most of mine were from Lowe's and the rest from Wal-Mart. I wonder if the WM bulbs are the ones that went early?
I'll have to find out -- right now, I'm about 3000 miles away from them (for the summer). Who knows, maybe all of them pooped out within the few weeks I've been away :P If you haven't done so already, mark the base of the bulb casing with the date it went into service -- use a permanent marker ;)
Weissensteinburg (author)  dchall87 years ago
Were they wal-mart brand?
I'll have to sort that out. I have some packages around here.
Almost TEN YEARS AGO on October 2, 1997
World's Nobel Laureates And Preeminent Scientists Call On Government
Leaders To Halt Global Warming

Science Daily - (Washington, DC - September 30) More than 1,500 of the world's most distinguished senior scientists, including the majority of Nobel laureates in science, have signed a landmark consensus declaration urging leaders worldwide to act immediately to prevent the potentially devastating consequences of human-induced global warming. The "World Scientists' Call for Action at Kyoto" was presented to the Clinton Administration today at a Science Summit on Climate Change in Washington, DC.

Let there be no doubt about the conclusions of the scientific community: the threat of global warming is very real and action is needed immediately, said Nobel laureate Henry Kendall, Chairman of the Union of Concerned Scientists and author of the scientists' statement. It is a grave error to believe that we can continue to procrastinate. Scientists do not believe this and no one else should either.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/10/971002070106.htm

That's precisely what ExxonMobil and its helpers have achieved, latterly aided and abetted by the Bush Administration. Denial, obfuscation, prevarication and delay, meanwhile the problems have worsened, the costs spiralled, and their profits from oil have grown.
The most important step to saving the environment is, get a vasectomy!! hmm I might do an instructable on that, sans pictures. What say ye mighty InstructoGods?
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/steigerwald/s_513013.html

apparantly NOAA (where al gore gets his weather readings) has been "cooking the books" all along. Placing thermometers beside burn barrels and air conditioner exhaust vents, and then "tweaking" the numbers once they get them.

By the way, this is not the only source for stories like this. Apparently numerous climatologists do not believe in Global warming. Most of the one's Al Gore quotes are Biologists (study insects and critters) not the people who study the climate. Another thing worth noting is that our climate has shifted numerous times in the past my more than 3 degree's, at present the only scientists that do believe in global warming say that we have had an increase of 0.5 degrees. Our planet is always in flux, its just part of the cycles this world goes through. Like the tides and volcanoes just happens over a longer period of time than one human life is around for. There was actually a warmer period during the renaisance followed by a "mini ice age" during the Victorian period. It is pure arrogance to say that man is so all powerful that we are the ones controlling a natural phenomena as large as the warming and cooling cycles of this planet.
Cheiron

I think that you should be more careful to check your facts are correct before posting information which is distinctly misleading.

When you stated that NOAA (where al gore gets his weather readings) has been "cooking the books" all along. Placing thermometers beside burn barrels and air conditioner exhaust vents, and then "tweaking" the numbers once they get them.
This is blatantly and manifestly untrue

The earliest station is South Carolina beginning the earliest 1871. Records from 158 stations begin prior to 1900, with that of Charleston. Most station records are essentially complete for at least 50 years; the latest beginning year of record is 1948.
Reworded only
From http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ndp070.html

From this it is reasonable to infer that many if not all the buildings were not present when the weather stations were originally installed.

I examined a few photos and this is exactly what I found!

The fact that the stations are modern, means only that they have been replaced by modern electronic stations to enable remote reading, rather than the old type which had to be visited for expensive eyeball reading.
The station location has been maintained to preserve continuity of records. That is why there have to be corrections made to allow for the changes caused by the less than ideal proximity of buildings, caused by construction & other human activity. So the actual truth is rather different from that what you portray.

I have not seen Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, but I am convinced that the testimony of non climatologists was given to affirm the effects of global warming only. As to the scientific consensus, the scientific consensus is overwhelmingly in agreement that GW is happening and that it's caused by man's activities. Which is exactly the opposite of your claim.

Not one contradictory article out of the 928 peer-reviewed scientific articles climate change were published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, ref. 'The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change' by Naomi Oreskes. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/306/5702/1686.pdf

Where are these peer-reviewed articles contradicting man-made GW?
There must be hundreds of them, if what you say is true!
Except there aren't!

The medieval warm period was localised and not global, as was the little ice age, what has been shown is that the current warming is much greater than the medieval warm period, it is global and it's caused by man, as shown by the isotopic fingerprint. It matches the increases of GHGs especially CO2 in the atmosphere. It is not solar related. It is also confirmed by the fact that man is burning ~7 GT of fossil-fuels per year.

Just because you don't believe something does not amount to a dismissal of overwhelming scientific proof!

Question:
What's the difference in temperature beween ice at -0.5 degrees C and water at 0 degrees C?

So 0.5 degrees C can be significant!

It seems that the arrogance is that humans can believe that polluting the earth is OK!

Humans are consuming the earth's resources at three times the level which is sustainable.

Could not be previewed
Very good reply to Cheiron. The biosphere is a very complicated machine that gives us life and to tamper with it is insane. An agnostic friend of mine AND a Catholic priest both tell me we aren't destroying the world, just changing it. I counter with the suggestion I change the brake lines on their car while blindfolded. Can't do that, that's criminal! I've come to believe that proofs do not exist. All "proofs" are a form of communication and subject to interpretation. but in light of all the evidence......... I believe human technology will solve human problems. The problems are all rooted in arrogance and greed and the technology to solve these are known as H-bombs! I hope humans prove me wrong!
homeless carpenter
It's nice for one's posts to be appreciated.
Sometimes, I get the distinct impression that I'm being a nuisance. Which is of course true!

However, it's essential to prevent misinformation being left unchallenged.

Why can't people look to real science sites like www.realclimate.org rather than believing the garbage science pumped-out by Crichton and all the other ExxonMobil et al channels? RC is a massive short-cut to the science and the non-science=nonsense.

Regarding your comment on technology, there is little doubt that we cannot continue as we are and have been. Things will have to change: for an overview of why:

Here are two videos featuring Lester Brown who has been describe as “one of the planet's most important thinkers” He is founder of the Worldwatch Institute and the Earth Policy Institute, and author or co-author of 50 books related to the environment.

Plan B: Rescuing a Planet Under Stress and a Civilization in Trouble
The President of the Earth Policy Institute asks how the global economy can be restructured to become environmentally sustainable dropping knowledge is a global initiative to turn apathy into activity. By hosting an open conversation on the most pressing issues of our times, we will foster a worldwide exchange of viewpoints, ideas and people-powered solutions.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7913220204273223776

China: Forcing the World to Rethink Its Economic Future
Convincing new evidence from China shows that its existing fossil-fuel-based, automobile-centered, throwaway economy cannot sustain progress much longer. Lester Brown will look at both China's current consumption of basic resources, which now exceeds that of the U.S., and at China's future consumption in 2031 when its income is projected to reach that of the U.S. today. Dr. Brown will discuss ways to restructure the global economy so that it can sustain economic progress through renewable energy, the reuse and recycling of materials, and a diverse transport system.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4449532225517541673
Two points:
1) There may not be as many dissenting papers, but there are still quite a few. And majority does not = correctness, as we know from oh so many episodes of science history. Note also that many of the dissenting papers do not say things like "global warming is nonsense and will not happen." Often, they say things like "Hey, you know how we can't even predict the weather tomorrow? Well it turns out my models suggest that we can't do it 100 years in the future either. So we have no idea either way." Most meta-studies do not include conclusions like that (they only include "pro" or "con," not "we don't know"), leading to a misleadingly high proportion of "let's freak out about global warming" papers being tallied. if you want a list of some interesting studies, the best compilation I know of is the bibliography of Crighton's "State of Fear." Some of the things he cites are also meta-studies, and will have citations for countless more relevant papers, but I haven't had the time to research all of that, since I, you know, have a job and such. It's there for you to peruse, though.

2) You are correct to say that weather stations could not have been placed next to air conditioning vents if they were placed in 1870. But think about this for a second. If in 1870, there were no buildings, and now there are, then that weather station is going to report massive temperature spikes in its climate. But it won't really be the climate. It will be the fact that there was a city built right next to the weather station! And cities are hot, way hotter than the land around them. This makes that weather station completely useless for 1870-present data. If they used stations like that, their readings will say it is getting hotter than it is, or in other words, that global warming is more imminent than it may be. There's even a name for this - it's called the "urban heat island effect." And since the majority of weather stations back in the day were built in clusters in the wilderness NEAR towns (somebody had to walk out there and take readings. Thus, they did not put stations more than about 10 miles out the vast majority of the time), if not in them, almost all have since been swallowed up by suburbia. But not nearly as much of the world's actual land proportionately has been swallowed up by suburbia. Thus, inaccurate statistical conclusions from that data.
smurfsahoy
First of all apologies for a long, rambling post.

It is disappointing that apart from majority does not = correctness and Crighton wrote "State of Fear." There was virtually nothing that you stated in your short post that was correct! Even then you managed to mis-spell Crichton's name.
Like Cheiron, who I chided for not being more careful to check his facts were correct before posting information which is distinctly misleading. You have fallen into the same trap!
I try very hard to check my sources and avoid errors, but not always successfully.

Sadly, you chose to believe the unbelievable Crichton rather than the great numbers of scientists who have dedicated their lives in the search for the truth, because that is what science in its purest sense is all about.
Yet there is a widespread and irrational distrust of scientists, which is strange when we have scientists to thank for every piece of technology that we use, or rely upon, whether it's chemical, pharmaceutical, medical, electronics & computers, optical, genetic & etc. – because it's science based! The real problem would seem to be the public opinion of science. This is where Crichton comes into the picture.

Crichton tells tales i.e. He writes fiction for a living.
In (http://web3.streamhoster.com/idstaff/pdf/ebookexcerpts/9780060820640.pdf), Crichton states:
Quote
.., However, references to real people, institutions, and organizations that are documented in footnotes are accurate. Footnotes are real.
Endquote
The author of the pdf file is listed as 'Michael Crichton'.

There is little doubt that Crichton is quite good at fiction, but if the "State of Fear" and his 2005 statement to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works Hearing are any guide, he is not so good at the truth, or getting his facts right. The reader is left decide for himself / herself! However, it seems fair to say that there is a tendency for Crichton (which some might describe as systematic) to cherry-pick science, use half truths, use science out of context, introduce inaccuracies, manipulations & deliberate distortions in order to further what seems to be his hidden agenda. It is fiction with scientific pretences. Crichton has seen fit to undermine the science of man-made GW, repeat spurious claims (in "State of Fear" and his 2005 Senate statement). There are too many errors and all apparently leading in the same direction, surely these errors cannot be random, they seem to indicate a deliberate intent to misinform public opinion of the true state of evidence. Dr. Crichton is certainly no fool. It is almost certain that he has relied upon most people not exploring and examining the references. Please don't forget that the increasingly unbelievable Crichton claims these are accurate.

Accuracy is not negotiable - except perhaps in the world of fiction.

Quote
My recent novel State of Fear concerns the politicization of scientific research. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this subject. What I would like to emphasize to the committee today is the importance of independent verification to science.
Endquote
U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works - Hearing Statements Date: 09/28/2005
Statement of Michael Crichton, M.D. - The Role of Science in Environmental Policy-Making
http://epw.senate.gov/public/hearing_statements.cfm?id=246766
What Crichton nearly said and what everyone should be concerned about is the politicization of science! Isn't that precisely what Crichton has been doing? - What humbug!

Quote from State of Fear
Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough.
Endquote
Once again Crichton only tells the part of the story that is convenient to the point he is making. The scientific consensus is not the reason anybody should accept the science of global warming. The reason consensus is important is that the majority of climatologists are convinced by the overwhelming evidence. Almost all the climatologists who claim not to be convinced by the overwhelming evidence that GW is man-made, have been or are receiving money directly or indirectly from fossil-fuel industry or other high energy use industries. So the wily Crichton has deliberately turned the argument into a straw-man, just so that he can knock it down.

Crichton is not above claiming support from scientific papers that do not support his arguments! It is notable that a number of the scientists he quotes, have complained at his misrepresentation of their work to suit what is presumably his political agenda.

URLs debunking Crichton's "State of Fear." here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74
-
Etheridge objects to Crichton's claims generated by researchers who believe firmly in global warming.. But Etheridge says he objects to this characterization of his so-called beliefs.
Quote
There is little indication for Crichton of what beliefs I may or may not have, he said via email. My work as a professional scientist allows me only to produce and deal with evidence, not beliefs.
Endquote
Dr. Douglas R. Hardy disagrees with Crichton
Quote (my emphasis)
Again, Crichton supplies references. But UMass-Amherst climatologist Douglas Hardy, a coauthor of the 2004 paper on Kilimanjaro cited, says Crichton is distorting his work. Crichton is doing what I perceive the denialists always to do, says Hardy. And that is to take things out of context, or take elements of reality and twist them a little bit, or combine them with other elements of reality to support their desired outcome.
For example, while the case of Kilimanjaro does seem more complicated (with factors like drier conditions and less cloud cover also implicated in its glacial retreat), Hardy notes that for other glaciers, especially in tropical latitudes, the link is very clear between changes in tropospheric temperature and [glacial retreats]. And even in the case of Kilimanjaro, Hardy adds, climate change may be playing a role.
As for the notion that replanting the forest at Kilimanjaro's base will help the glacier to grow again, Hardy says: The forests need replanting for many reasons, but I think that [Crichton's] idea is preposterous, without some larger-scale changes.
Endquote
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/02/06/checking_crichtons_footnotes/
-
Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion - by Gavin Schmidt, Earth Institute climate scientist and RealClimate.org contributor (Note: Schmidt's boss is James Hansen)
http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/news/2004/story12-13-04b.html
-
Crichton makes several attempts to cast doubt on scientific evidence regarding global warming.
First, he highlights the “urban heat island effect.” - Dealt with in another post.
Second, Crichton argues that global temperature declines from 1940-1970 disprove, or at least cast
doubt on, scientific conclusions with respect to global warming. - Aerosols.
Third, Crichton offers graph after graph showing temperature declines during the past century in
places such as Puenta Arenas (Chile), Greenville (South Carolina), Ann Arbor (Michigan), Syracuse
(New York) and Navacerrada (Spain). - Global warming does not mean warming everywhere.
Note: All are half-truths, with the important piece missing.
Michael Crichton and Global Warming - by David B. Sandalow
http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/fellows/sandalow20050128.pdf
-
Carbon Dioxide, Global Warming, and Michael Crichton's "State of Fear" - Rust
http://math.nist.gov/~BRust/pubs/Interface2005/PrePrint.pdf
http://math.nist.gov/mcsd/Seminars/2005/2005-09-13-rust-presentation.pdf
-
Quote
Michael Crichton’s latest fictional novel, “State of Fear”, designed to discredit concerns about global warming, purports to use the scientific method. The book is sprinkled with references to scientific papers, and Crichton intones in the introduction that his '“footnotes are real”'. But does Crichton really use the scientific method? Or is it something closer to scientific fraud?
End quote
Michael Crichton’s “Scientific Method” - Hansen
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/hansen_re-crichton.pdf
-
The Global Warming Debate - By James Hansen — January 1999
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/index.html
-
The Global Warming Debate - AARST, Nov. 20, 1998, New York - Statements by Dr. James Hansen
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/gwdebate.pdf
-
One of the papers cited by Crichton as evidence against GW
Modern Glacier Retreat on Kilimanjaro as Evidence of Climate Change: Observations and Facts – See quote from one of the co-authors below.
http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/kaser2004.pdf
-
Climate Debate Gets Its Icon: Mt. Kilimanjaro
Quote (my emphasis)
Other authors of the new study said they were particularly dismayed that the industry-supported group had portrayed their paper as a definitive refutation of the idea that melting from warming was involved.
We have a mere 2.5 years of actual field measurements from Kilimanjaro glaciers, unlike many other regions, so our understanding of their relationship with climate and the volcano is just beginning to develop," Dr. Douglas R. Hardy, a geologist at the University of Massachusetts and an author of the paper, wrote by e-mail. "Using these preliminary findings to refute or even question global warming borders on the absurd."
Endquote
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Kilimanjaro.pdf
-
Further evidence of Crichton's bias is evidenced by his misleading comments during his statement to a Senate Committee:
In his statement, Crichton unjustifiably criticised the peer-reviewed Mann et al. (1998) hockey stick paleoclimate temperature reconstruction and then repeated the spurious allegations made by McIntyre and McKitrick in the non peer-reviewed Energy & Environment which have been extensively rebutted and shown to be false. McIntyre and McKitrick's paper was rejected during the peer-review process at 'Nature'. McIntyre and McKitrick's spurious claims have never been retracted.
Crichton states
Quote from Crichton's 2005 statement
McIntyre and McKitrick had to go to great lengths to obtain the data from Mann's team, which obstructed them at every turn.
End Quote
Mann et al. cunningly obstructed McIntyre and McKitrick at every turn - by having already posted all the data, so that it was publicly available on Mann's website – I believe it had been there for ~ nearly two years. Yet another incorrect and misleading claim repeated by Crichton.
It's hard to understand why Crichton had not seen fit to contact the Mann et al. (1998) team or read the comprehensive rebuttal by Mann et al. 2004, he would have learned of the series of errors that McIntyre and McKitrick had made. There are other allegations about what Crichton is claimed to have said, but confirming references couldn't be identified, so they are not repeated here.

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works Hearing Statements
Date: 09/28/2005 Statement of Michael Crichton, M.D. Author, Doctor
The Role of Science in Environmental Policy-Making
http://epw.senate.gov/public/hearing_statements.cfm?id=246766
-
Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries Mann et al. 1998
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/MannBradleyHughes1998.pdf
http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/shared/articles/MBH98-corrigendum04.pdf
-
Climate Over Past Millennia - revised 4 February 2004; Jones & Mann
http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/shared/articles/JonesMannROG04.pdf
-
On Past Temperatures and Anomalous late-20th Century Warmth - Mann et al. 2003
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/EosForum2003_revised20June.pdf
-
Note on Paper by McIntyre and McKitrick in "Energy and Environment"
http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/Mann/EandEPaperProblem.pdf
-
Corrections to the Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series - McIntyre and McKitrick
http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf
-
The McIntyre and McKitrick (M&M) Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications
http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.ee.2005.pdf
-
One of Crichton's many State of Fear deceptions begins with a satement of fact: he correctly states that atmospheric CO2 was increasing while (Northern Hemisphere) temperatures actually fell during 1940-1970. What Crichton omits to mention is that during the post WW2 industrial boom, there was something else, a huge increase in sulphate and nitrate aerosols emitted in the Northern Hemisphere. These aerosols cause cooling and it is believed that this increase can probably account for most if not all of the cooling. Whilst during the same period in New Zealand and presumably in the rest of the Southern Hemisphere, GW continued. (Salinger, M.J., and J.M. Gunn (1975) - "Recent Climatic Warming around New Zealand." Nature 256: 396-98. abstract only read). Now of course, it's more complicated than that, but you get the general idea.
-
Crichton also repeats in State of Fear Patrick Michaels' 1998 mendacious manipulations of Hansen's testimony to congress in 1988. Ten years later, Patrick Michaels during his testimony to congress in 1998 on the danger of anthropogenic global warming. During that testimony he presented a graph -- part of a paper (Hansen et al. 1988) published after Hansen's testimony in 1988. This graph was published with had three plots on it, representing three scenarios based on three projections of future emissions and volcanism.

Line A was a temperature trend prediction based on rapid emissions growth and no large volcanic event; it was a steep climb through the year 2000 and beyond.
Line B was based on modest emissions growth and one large volcanic eruption in the mid 1990s.
Line C began along the same trajectory as Line B, and included the same volcanic eruption, but showed reductions in the growth of CO2 emission by the turn of the century -- the result of hypothetical government controls.

Michaels erased the bottom two plots in order to give the impression that the models were unreliable and that his assertion believable that Hansen's predictions had been off by 450 %, (Crichton changed this to 300%) . Some have called this act by Michaels, chicanery, it is certainly a lie by omission.
The fact that Crichton saw fit to repeat these deceptions is sufficient evidence for why the “State of Fear”, is of absolutely no use scientifically, despite Crichton's bold claims that his footnotes are real, maybe they are, but they are not true and correct!

Summary of Crichton's statements
Of the statements examined, every one was found to be factually incorrect. Some were merely untrue and repeated by Crichton with or without material changes. His failure to correct the errors indicates that either he is incompetent because he failed to check his facts were correct, or that he is biased and deliberately set-out to deceive his readers. Since Dr. Crichton is intelligent and well educated, . It seems that the former is unlikely. One can only conclude that the numerous manipulations, distortions, fallacies and other tricks were deliberate and included intentionally.

The fact that the “State of Fear”, is full of errors, distortions and deceptions, renders it absolutely useless scientifically, despite Crichton's bold claims that his footnotes are real, maybe they are, but they are not true and correct!
No evidence was identified to support the view that Crichton is reliable as a witness or source of information. It appears that all reports of Crichton's accuracy are a work of fiction.

Quote
Hey, you know how we can't even predict the weather tomorrow? Well it turns out my models suggest that we can't do it 100 years in the future either. So we have no idea either way."
End quote
No scientific paper will ever use these words, or anything like this!

First, you need to understand the fundamental difference between weather and climate.
Here is a Grade 6 to 8 explanation - "Differences Between Climate and Weather".
http://www.ucar.edu/learn/1_2_2_8t.htm

Secondly, the quote is simply factually incorrect! The increasing accuracy of climate models, via increased spatial resolution is evidence of this. However these models are increasingly complex and in-turn, require increasingly powerful supercomputers. The models are able to closely reconstruct the observations. They can also model paleoclimatic events, although I believe that there remain some problems remaining with the ice-age terminations. But science is like that, as questions are answered, more previously undreamed-of questions arise. It often takes more time to derive new theories and gather data to answer these new questions. One major factor you have overlooked is when anyone is attempting to model potential future climate, it is inevitable that there are numerous assumptions about the future that have to be made. Differences between the assumptions and what actually transpires can have significant effects.

First, how are the man-made emissions and other activities likely to change?
Secondly, since volcanic eruptions cannot currently be predicted. Assumptions can be made as to how large such a potential eruption is likely to be.
Clearly there are various other natural variations that need to be factored in, but this is why large numbers of runs are required, each with different assumptions. Naturally modelling potential future climate is fraught with difficulties.

General climate model information
http://www.research.noaa.gov/climate/t_modeling.html

A useful overview
The Discovery of Global Warming - http://www.aip.org/history/climate/

About ground meteorological stations.
I stated in a previous post
The earliest station is South Carolina beginning the earliest 1871. Records from 158 stations begin prior to 1900, with that of Charleston. Most station records are essentially complete for at least 50 years; the latest beginning year of record is 1948.
Reworded only
From http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ndp070.html''
Note: They all date from 1948 or earlier.

In that very same previous post, I refer to the Urban Heat Island effect. The UHI effect was first recognised by G.S. Callendar back in 1938, and he made efforts to compensate for it. All subsequent workers have taken it into account. The basic problem is that meteorologists (climatologists too) require continuity. Moving a station is the absolute last resort. So, if compensation for the UHI effect is possible, the station is left where it is. Otherwise the continuity of the records will be lost.

NASA / GISS take the UHI effect very seriously and use satellite data to classify stations as rural and urban and corrects the urban stations so that they match the trends from the rural stations before gridding the data.

Increasing temperatures from the UHI effect only occur during the transition phase from rural via semi-rural to an urban locality, after this there is a temperature offset, there is no upward trend, once urbanisation is complete.

Note: Presumably the 2001 Hansen et al. may be affected slightly by the recently reported ground station discontinuity which averaged at 0.15 deg C. No, I did not check!

A closer look at United States and global surface temperature change.
J. Hansen, R. Ruedy and M. Sato
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Hansen_etal.pdf
-
GISS analysis of surface temperature change.
Hansen, J., R. Ruedy, J. Glascoe, and Mki. Sato, 1999:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1999/1999_Hansen_etal.pdf
-
RealClimate on UHI
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/07/no-man-is-an-urban-heat-island/

You appear to have jumped carelessly to the same completely unwarranted and unjustified conclusion that many others including Cheiron have: namely that scientists are all rather stupid. Otherwise, how could they make such a basic and rather obvious mistake? Scientists are certainly human and do make mistakes, but they are very intelligent, and those with higher degrees i.e. Ph.D. & etc. are significantly more so than the average non-scientist. Scientists also try very hard not to make mistakes or other errors, because it's potentially disastrous for a scientist's reputation and standing. A scientist's reputation is slow and hard to build but can be quickly and easily lost. Scientists are therefore desperate to avoid risking their reputations. All of which are reasons why they are scientists and the rest of us are not!

Acknowledgements
Coby Beck
Tim Lambert
RealClimate
Hansen, Schmidt, Mann and all the scientists who unravel the mysteries.

A note to the casual observer:

Some posts are made by people with a hidden agenda.
I include links so that for those who are interested can see for themselves – there is no need to take my word for it! After all I could be lying or might make a mistake! Believe me, I do make mistakes!
I am not a scientist as any scientist would probably guess. Readers are invited to look at the references.
My agenda should be fairly obvious: Science must take complete precedence over politics, religion and commercial interests.
If you want to reduce human population growth, vasectomy is fairly pointless. Men are not the bottleneck. On the other hand, in a committed monogamous relationship, after all the breeding is done with, it is the best birth control bar none.
Tool Using Animal
Speaking from the viewpoint of a gadfly, rather than a InstructoGod, a status to which I can only aspire, I think it would be a good idea!

However, certain potential problems might arise!

Perhaps a disclaimer such as DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME
That only works if you're a guy. :)
Maybe I'm ignorant, but I've never heard of a vasectomy being performed on a non-guy! vasectomy, vas deferens
It need images.... all instructables need images.... But tasteful, not necessarily of you images.... Perhaps the use of anatomical models? Or, at the very least, anatomical vegetables (coming soon btw)?
Definitely not pictures of me images ;-) I'll see what I can glean off the net
All I can say is... thanks for being obscure with it :P
Weissensteinburg (author)  trebuchet037 years ago
Tomatoes and cucumbers? Maybe some shredded carrot?
I don't have air conditioning, so my family opens all the windows in the house during the night to cool off the house at night. If it gets really hot during the day, we just open a window in the basement, (which is unfinished, so the walls and floor are cement), and turn on the whole house fan to suck cold air from there.
Aren't basements generally underground?
yes, but we have window wells... they look like big holes next to the house. One side of the hole is a window
Gotcha, I think I've seen those before.
Metal4God7 years ago
Global warming may exist but Its nothing we can do about. We are not causing it. If you think we are then your nuts because there is no life-form on mars but there is Global Warming there.
Weissensteinburg (author)  Metal4God7 years ago
Someone is 12 (or younger)
no Im 13 (almost) but Its true we aren't causing global warming
if youre almost 13 that means youre 12. how can you think we arnt causing global warming?...that is completely absurd..and yes we can do alot to help prevent further global warming. hence this instructable. what youre talking about on mars are the iceages where the plannet changes its tilt along its axis every few thousand years
there was no ice age and we aren't causing global warming explain mars mars had ice all over it and now the ice is melting because of global warming so explain that and listen to glen beck as much as me and my dad do about global warming and see what you think about that. how do you like them apples punk
Fender,
Regarding the warming on Mars, there is every reason to believe that it's caused by increased dust storms.
Especially, since the solar output has fallen slightly in the last two years (new data).
Glen Beck, as far as I can tell, is a self-opinionated, politically motivated individual. He is not a reliable source of scientific information.
I suggest you obtain your science from a reliable source.

The Royal Society is one of the oldest and most respected academy of science in the world. You can look at any National Academies of Science from anywhere and find the same information. It will be the same, because the science is established, it's overwhelming and we all live on the same planet!

I have provided the links to pdf files which you can download and read. Please don't get depressed! Just get everyone you know to read them and do something about it. It can be averted, if we all act together, rather than believing the oil companies' lies, ( mostly from Exxon-Mobil ).

Exxon-Mobil have spent between 1998 to 2006 nearly $23 Million, on persuading the public that global warming is a myth, or it's not caused by man, or it's good or anything that's nothing to do with burning carbon-based fuels. Because Exxon-Mobil don't want to reduce their profits and they are prepared to wreck the planet in-order to maintain their profits. It's your planet too!

http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/full-report-exxon-s-weapons-o.pdf
http://www.exxposeexxon.com/facts/ExxonSecretsAnalysis.pdf

A statement issued by the science academies of the G8 nations, Brazil, China and India, in June 2005, called on world leaders to take prompt global action to tackle climate change.
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/document.asp?id=3222

The Royal Society has produced this overview of the current state of scientific understanding of climate change to help non-experts better understand some of the debates in this complex area of science.

This is not intended to provide exhaustive answers to every contentious argument that has been put forward by those who seek to distort and undermine the science of climate change and deny the seriousness of the potential consequences of global warming. Instead, the Society - as the UK's national academy of science - responds here to eight key arguments that are currently in circulation by setting out, in simple terms, where the weight of scientific evidence lies.
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/trackdoc.asp?id=4085&pId=6229

Facts and fictions about climate change

It has become fashionable in some parts of the UK media to portray the scientific evidence that has been collected about climate change and the impact of greenhouse gas emissions from human activities as an exaggeration. Some articles have claimed that scientists are ignoring uncertainties in our understanding of the climate and the factors that affect it. Some have questioned the motives of the scientists who have presented the most authoritative assessments of the science of climate change, claiming that they have a vested interest in playing up the potential effects that climate change is likely to have.
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/trackdoc.asp?id=1630&pId=4761
Report: Big Money Confusing Public on Global Warming
ExxonMobil Tactics Similar to Tobacco Industry, Group Found

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/print?id=2767979
(removed by author or community request)
I don't go to church and besides we don't talk about it there when we go. we go to calvary chapel of Bangor with Ken graves were not a regular church where you dress up we were casual clothes and we have hard rock for music
Fender A lesson about logic. What you say doesn't make sense! You wrote "I don't go to church and besides we don't talk about it there when we go..," You cannot both 'do' and 'not do' something! Chapel and church are in-effect almost the same thing, as demonstrated by your confusion. They are religious buildings related to Christian worship. PS Your spelling is atrocious!
we used to go DUH your a moron and i don't read half the comments you give me so SHUT THE HECK UP i dont spell goo because my keyboard is broken
Weissensteinburg (author)  Metal4God7 years ago
...You still didn't say it right.
like I said the key bod doesn't work right
Fender, So you have no evidence for your laughable assertion about the so-called imaginary ice-ages. Your claims about global warming are equally fatuous. All you can do is be rude! This is not the way to behave. But you will need to amend your attitude when you grow-up.
Fender,
You say there was no ice age.

I believe you are mistaken. I suspect you have been misled at church.

I would like to point-out the caves in SW & SE France where there are beautiful charcoal drawings, carvings and polychrome paintings of woolly mammoths, woolly rhinoceros, reindeer caribou for North Americans , there are also Tarpan wild horse, wolf and Musk Ox. Musk
Ox are still found on the Tibetan plateau,
http://tw.strahlen.org/praehistorie/dordogne/22047-RouffignacNashorn.jpg
http://homepage.hispeed.ch/philipp.wehrli/Evolution/Datierungsmethoden/Mammut_Rouffignac.JPG
The caves are called Chauvet Cave, Lascaux, Font de Gaume, Rouffignac. There may be others.
http://donsmaps.com/chauvetcave.html
http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/data/2001/08/01/html/ft_20010801.6.html
These paintings date to 35,000 to 9,000 years bce. That is 37,000 to 11,000 years ago.

Surprisingly, there are many scientists that believe there was an ice-age in Europe at the time!

Re-issued to add Chauvet cave and Musk Ox.
what do you mean "no ice age"? the beaches of NW. englend are comprised of fine, yellow-y sand, bought by glacial activity. In the lake district, there's all th glacial ( \_/
Vendigroth, If you are replying to me, I think you've misunderstood! I was replying to Fender from Maine, NE, who I was quoting! I referred to cave-art in France as a refutation of his assertion. The cold-loving mega-fauna and large fauna being depicted in the drawings and paintings. I think he's too young to appreciate glaciation in Wales and the Lake district, without an extended explanation of glaciated landscapes; U-shaped valleys, moraines, corries, aretes, tarns, & etc. I'm pretty certain that he was coming from the creationist / young earth perspective, hence my references to something rather older than 10 k y.
yes, you're entirely right;
(_)' i replied to the wrong comment...
Fender, I know you are very young and from a Christian background. In the US, depending upon the community this can make life for free-thinkers extremely difficult. There can be considerable pressure to 'fit-in' and be 'normal'. In the end it is your choice, but it is important that you realise that not everywhere in the world is like that. You owe it to yourself, when you are older, to learn more about science and the world. Things are evidently not as you believe and have been taught! This is clear from your posts on this forum. You have been misled by one or more persons, and it's reasonable to assume this was not malevolent, but through ignorance.
read:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17952631/

http://www.marsdaily.com/reports/Global_Warming_Hits_Mars_Too_999.html

"New data points to the possibility it is emerging from an ice age."

"...used by some to infer an external common mechanism for global warming on Earth and Mars..But this is incorrect reasoning and based on faulty understanding of the data."

"However, this is essentially due to large scale dust storms that were common back then, compared to a lower level of storminess now."

there are no dust storms on earth my friend. mars is a very different planet compared to earth. The ice is melting on mars because it is leaving an ICE age causing co2 levels to raise and dust storms are creating temperature changes. and what do you mean "there was no ice age"...theve have been plenty on both mars and earth. and i eat apples alot actually..
Fender, Why is anyone who believes the scientists who say that man-made Global Warming nuts? Bearing in mind that the scientists who say that global warming isn't man-made, used to deny it, now they admit it, but now some say it's down to the sun. Except, the non-trend in solar output hasn't changed since 1978. The solar output varies with the eleven year sunspot cycle and no corresponding variation has been found. If what you say is true, why isn't there warming on all the other planets? There isn't! There a number of reputable sources, where it is possible to learn about GW science. But try and avoid anywhere funded by the fossil-fuel lobby. They fund the scientists who say that GW is caused by anything but man-made CO2.
Vendigroth7 years ago
isn't it odd that (geologically speaking) the moment we leave an ice age, it suddenly gets warmer?
Seanroc27 years ago
People who buy into global warming after only hearing one side of the argument should read the book "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton. It will make you think twice. You would do research on a car before you buy it. Do research on a theory before you buy into it.
Seanroc2
You were right about doing research. It's a shame you didn't do any!

Is this Michael Crichton a climatologist or a writer of FICTION?

Yes, it's fiction! But fiction with a political motive!

Crichton misunderstands or misrepresents science and uses selective science to support his viewpoint.

For the facts about this fiction, they're quite a read!
Some points covered and explained / debunked:
Post WW2 cooling due to sulphate aerosols
cooling of Antarctica's interior
misleading and selective recollection regarding Jim Hansen's testimony to congress in 1988
p315, it is claimed that "in the 1970's all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming"
Urban Heat Island Effect
sea-level rise

See:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74

and

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/02/06/checking_crichtons_footnotes/
I like your use of the word "argument." It's not over whether global warming exists. It does! It's over what causes it. Our planet has been through thousands of ice ages, and all but two were prior to our presence on Earth. I've seen no evidence that either iceage (caused by global warming... and cooling) that mankind has lived through were caused by man's abuse of the environment. While I strongly oppose the disgraceful waste of natural resources and the rape of our pocketbooks by those corporations that control energy, I suspect its effect on global warming is about the equivalent of a grain of salt in a bucket of water contributing toward its salination.
And you would trust your dentist to sell you a car? Michael Crichton's book is full of distortion and gross overstatements. The scientists he sources have stated they are disgusted by the manner in which he manipulated their data, and have stated, he got it wrong. The man even claims to have more authority on the issue then climatologists, and people see the 'Dr' in front of his name and believe it. The man studied medicine, and has NO background in earth sciences. How about you do some real research, and go deeper then Al Gore or Michael Crichton? Go to your local university, talk to the science department and actually learn something instead of buying into your fast food packaged opinion. This is getting old. The science is intuitive and proves itself as the most likely of all possibilities is that global warming is real, and is human caused. The earth is horribly complex network of systems upon systems, and yes there will always be discrepancies, but overall, evidence points to one general conclusion. Please stop trying to discredit each other on graphs that you truly don't understand, which is even more ridiculous when so few of you have any rudimentary of how this planet works. I can agree with you though, all the Al Gorities are annoying. But to be honest, so are all the nay-sayers. This is a complex issue that can't be summarized in a work of fiction, or a movie with flashy presentations.
Exactly, you kinda have to look at both sides, do your own research, and re-interpret graphs.
CameronSS7 years ago
This is well needed. BTW, your gas guzzler of doom appears to be a Ford Expedition. An Excursion, or Jeep Wrangler, or a Chevy Avalanche, or a Hummer H1 would be a bit more appropriate. It is impossible to "not believe in" global warming. That is like saying that you "don't believe" the Earth is round, or that it orbits the sun, or that clouds are made of water vapor, or that matter is made of atoms. Global warming is not a religion, a cult, or an idea. It is a documented, well-studied, scientific fact. The only matter up for debate is how much we are doing to accelerate the warming. Whether or not you think it is our problem, we are running out of rainforests, lumber, freshwater, clean air, petroleum, coal, space, and time. Conservation is important either way. And it is easy to save energy. We bought a 1980 Ford Courier EV on eBay a year and a half ago for $1500. We won't turn on the A/C until at least late July, if not August, and we live in Kansas, the chunk of America with the sweatiest combination of heat and humidity. We didn't even own an air conditioner until I was ten. We just run an attic fan at night when it's cooler, drink icy water, and live with 78 degrees. It's not that hard, people.
Stikk CameronSS7 years ago
Ok, calm down Al Gore, you're making some pretty rash claims here about global warming.. We've all seen the film, we've all seen the graphs and you have to admit, from a scientific point of view, there are some questions about the validity. I am not saying global warming doesnt exist but your claim that it's like saying the earth is flat and the earth revolves around the sun are EXTREMELY poor examples. These were ideas that in the past were percieved to be true, people really did think the earth was flat, they really did think the earth was the centre of the universe and disagreeing with them made you look stupid but look who came out on top in those disagreements. Be careful about what you hang your hat on because we are constantly learning more and more about the world we live in and to claim that the model we have right now is 100% accurate is naive and stupid. I live in Australia and I drive a Jeep Wrangler, i use my AC when it's hot and my heating when it's cold and that's how it's gonna stay.. You really think you sweating your ass off is gonna save the planet? Unlikely..
Stikk,
Ignore Al Gore, he got it generally right, but there were inevitable simplifications necessary for editorial reasons. But the overall gist was correct!

This is in contrast with the falsified documentary 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' that has been shown to be a bunch of lies from beginning to end. In-fact it was so 'accurate', that there are at least four different versions where the most obvious faked parts have been successively removed.
<a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/video-abc-australias-tony-jones-dissects-debunks-martin-durkin”</a>
<a href="http://www.durangobill.com/Swindle_Swindle.html”</a>

Even those that deny global warming's causes are saying that GW exists! Even though they used to deny even its very existence. There is so much evidence, not just from climatologists, but from many other scientists, whose observations agree with the effects of GW.

What you call these 'rash claims' about global warming are being made by the overwhelming majority of climatologists, who have been deceived by the science, data and observations. The questions regarding validity are from the usual suspects. If you try reading the science first, the agreement between climatologists is compelling although it can never be 100%.
<a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/”</a>
<a href="http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html”</a>

There are many half-baked attacks on the the climate scientific community, that are doubtless based-upon fossil-fuel funded propaganda. It is disingenuous for such people to suggest that climatologists are so completely incompetent that they would have overlooked some crucial piece of evidence that is glaringly obvious to the average layman. When one actually examines what has been investigated, these attacks are utterly outrageous and baseless.

As you state quite correctly, as science progresses, new discoveries can sometimes produce 'paradigm shifts', which overturn previous theories. Such 'paradigm shifts' are important, but rare. It seems unlikely in the extreme that GW will either go away or be found not to be related to the rise in anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere. But who knows!

The solar hypothesis is far from proven especially since the solar output which varies with an 11-year cycle, but has no increasing or reducing trend since 1978. A recent report has identified a decline in solar output, but this has yet to be confirmed by further studies. If solar effects did affect global temperatures in the ways claimed, then there must be a correlation between recent solar output and global temperatures – there isn't. Clearly, the sun effects us, but this has been included in the IPCC evaluations.

There is a significant correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures. The changes in the isotopic composition confirm that the increases in atmospheric CO2 are man-made from burning fossil fuels, because the isotopic make-up of fossil-fuels is different from non-fossil carbon. The increases in temperature are consistent with the increases in atmospheric CO2 and other man-made GHGs. The CO2 concentration is now the highest for ~600,000 years.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_FAQs.pdf

Some people naively believe that humans are uniquely immune to climate change. This is not true. An example that shows how even in a first-world country, citizens are not immune to climate change, is the current unprecedented drought in the Murray-Darling region of Australia, which is being attributed to GW, even if it is subsequently proved not to be, it will still however serve as an example of what to expect to occur as a result of GW.
It is currently notoriously difficult to pin-down a particular event to GW, but the predictions are that climate patterns will shift, although the finer detail is beyond current science. But the large-scale is relatively straight-forward. The zone between the topics is set to become hotter, some areas colder and it's not good for use or the rest of the life on the planet!

Of the pseudo-science that denies anthropogenic GW, it is largely published in the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post or Time Magazine. Some of it has never been published, except on the web. To be considered seriously, it has to be peer-reviewed and it has to be repeatable. This is where denialist science fails, denialist science has managed to evade peer-review mauling literally only a few times and get published, but bad can never be repeated! For more on flawed peer-review see:
<a href="http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/Climate_Science/CliSciFrameset.html</a>and click on 'Contrarians' in the left frame.

It is notable that only a very few scientists and even fewer climatologists are involved in promulgating the anti-man-made GW myth. It is also notable that most, if not all are or have been in receipt of fossil-fuel funding, directly or indirectly.
<a href="http://www.realclimate.org/irea_letterJul06.pdf">http://www.realclimate.org/irea_letterJul06.pdf</a> <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf</a>

Please note, the criticisms below are aimed at the people I see every day near my home.
The beef about SUV / 4WD, there are few that criticise those that really need them, where I live, the suburbs, with no vast tracts of wilderness and hardly any mud! It's the SUV drivers who use their vehicle as some kind of bizarre fashion accessory or to make them appear 'macho' - sad bastards - & never drive off-road, except to visit a supermarket, but still on asphalt. Some of these drivers are so completely ignorant about their vehicles and 4WD in particular, that they don't know what a differential lock is or what it's for. There have been numerous cases of drivers wondering about the tyres squealing and a new noise, so they visit the garage, only to be told that they've trashed their transmission and tyres because they've been fiddling with those knobs and left the diff-lock on!

Reposted because bug affected display
No one is asking you to sweat your ass off. It's just called...think about what you're doing. If you can make little adjustments, stop and think about what's taking up energy and what's really necessary and unnecessary, it adds up. No one is going to save the world by turning off their air conditioning forever and sweating their ass off. But is it really that excruciating to stop and think about your world and how we humans are interacting with it. jeez.
hahah right on
CameronSS Stikk7 years ago
Umm...the people who came out on top were the people who agreed with the scientific consensus and the overwhelming evidence. I don't think that sweating is going to save the planet. I think that not overusing resources such as air conditioning, natural gas heating, and petroleum products is going to save money, and the planet if enough people were more environmentally conscious. Just two days ago I went flying in the aircraft I described to Weissensteinburg, and even here in nice, clear, mostly unpolluted Kansas, there was an obvious layer of yellow gunk from the power plants. Now, I have made the same point several times, and each time I do so I waste another five minutes of precious summer break time. Feel free to form your own opinions, but look at things from a scientist's point of view, not a conspiracy theorist's point of view. This is the last time I will post a comment on this subject, simply because I don't have time to waste. Weissensteinburg, whose name I just spelled without looking, thank you very much, great Instructable. Wait, I didn't give a + rating yet? Oops...sorry...
NOTHING in science is fact, you learn that very early in school and if you do your research it isn't even close to fact and its very possible to "not believe in" something that dosn't have a strong scientific basis
However, fact or not fact, it does have an incredibly strong scientific basis. We have documentation of average temperatures, records of glacier and ice cap levels, and ice cores, all of which show rising levels of greenhouse gases and global temperatures. The only bit that cannot be as close to fact as science gets is how much is our fault. Personally, I see overwhelming evidence in the rapid climb in global temperature after the Industrial Revolution, as well as the aforementioned evidence that the current warming is faster than the Earth's natural temperature cycle.
yes but how accurate are the records? there are many places that had no weather data to speak of until recently and the accuracy of the weather data is what many of the recent theories and most of the theories are just that theories and there are many different ones from different sources and the media only shows the ones that predict the most dramatic changes and studies from 10 years ago predicted global cooling, the truth is no one knows whats going to happen. We do have a responsibility to take care of our planet (flying into Detroit yesterday you could actually see the smog in the atmosphere as I'm sure you can in other cities) so we do need to change but i wont believe in global warming until it is proven
First of all, there is a little button on the second row up on your keyboard, underneath the "L". If you poke it, it puts a little pixel on the screen that makes your conspiracy-fueled rambling easier to understand. Your statement about the accuracy of weather data is nearly incomprehensible, but it appears to be saying something to the effect that we do not have accurate data. We do. Thermometers aren't that hard to make accurately and precisely, and by using the tiny bubbles of gas trapped in the diminishing Antarctic ice, we can take atmospheric samples from hundreds and thousands of years ago. These samples are analyzed with great precision and accuracy, and they all show rapidly rising levels of methane and carbon dioxide. True, the media shows only what will sell, usually Paris Hilton gossip, but if you talk to or read articles by almost any scientist, they will tell you that there is overwhelming evidence for global warming and virtually none to the contrary. The world is warming, and personal beliefs aren't going to change that.
Right and what is your source for this? I would be very interested to see the studies so that i can show you others that contradict them. And if you say the world is warming what is it warming from? 10 years, 100 years, 1000 years? My comments are not fueled by conspiracy, though i believe yours are and only backed by the science you see on CNN and not actually looking up reports and studies that have accurate data. In regards to my grammar I know it is not very good and my spelling is worse but most of my errors are cough by Firefox, I am good in the science and technology area, that is why I'm here.
I cannot give you individual studies, though I doubt someone as "good in the science and technology area" as you would have any trouble finding a few of the hundreds of studies that have been done that provide evidence for global warming. As far as CNN, they have no science. I have not looked at CNN's "Science and Space" page in months, because the reports are so slow, inaccurate, and dumbed down. They still are explaining would happened to the crew of Columbia three and four years after the fact with any news about NASA. There are many scientific journals and publications that are much more reliable than CNN. I reference, straight off, Discover magazine, Scientific American, and the Bad Astronomy Blog, just to name a few. Most of the evidence I have comes from public lectures I've attended by leading meteorologists, climatologists, and geologists, not one of whom has denied that global warming is a very real and serious problem. Even Mike Griffin, our not-so-fantastic leader of NASA, has publicly stated that global warming exists. The reports that global warming is a hoax, a fraud, or just plain wrong are composed by publicity-seeking pseudoscientists who twist the facts to give contrary evidence.
CameronSS
I'm not sure if you are aware, but there has been an unprecedented degree of political interference under the Bush Administration. Political interference has happened under Democratic and Republican administrations, but it is by far the worst under Bush. for more details see
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/

Primarily it occurs in the areas of global warming / climate change, abortion / birth control and stem cell research. In-fact any aspect of science that GW Bush doesn't like!
As much as I despise our lousy president, this seems a bit extremist and one-sided. After all, Bush only lied to get us into one war, he had a reason for the other one. Granted, we'll probably be at war with Iran and North Korea by the time he leaves, but oh well. It's not so much that Shrub (sorry, Bush) has quashed science as he has neglected it. Also, work on your comments. You overuse bold text and your link is dead.
CameronSS
Regarding the link, it worked while I was typing the post. Yes it's still working, here it is again, just in-case there's a character killing it.
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/

Yes I suppose it's extremist and one sided, but it's the way GWB works.
If you read the information at the link there are the personal accounts of scientists who have been on the receiving end of this interference.

Sorry about the bold.
I have seen studies that support global warming and i have also seen many that contradict it and i find that the ones that contradict it are based more in science and less on trying to scare people into changing their ideas. You seem like another smart person hat has just taken what the majority has said as fact without looking up actual studies.
computer_gui
If you restrict your reading to scientific sources, rather than those funded directly or indirectly by fossil-duel interests and big business, you will have real difficulty in refuting the science! You have to be very careful about media outlets, because many of them are sensationalist, and more than a few have a political agenda which often leans away from awkward science.

You certainly could do worse than try www.realclimate.org which is run by climatologists and they are friendly. You can find out about the latest science and find-out about debunked pseudo-science like The Great Global Warming Swindle.

If you do venture to realclimate.org, you will learn why climatologists are so concerned about anthropogenic GW.
Another site to visit is the Union of Concerned Scientists www.ucsusa.org

You could try any of the following.
The National Academies of Science (or their respective equivalent) of China, France, United Kingdom, Canada, Brazil, United States, Japan, Italy and and Germany (http://www.rsc.ca/files/media/other/G8_climatestatement2005-en.pdf); the UK's Royal Society (http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/downloaddoc.asp?id=1630); the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (http://www.ipcc.ch)/; NASA (http://www.giss.nasa.gov)/; and NOAA (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html), to name just a few.

You could also try any of these [Google]
The American Geophysical Union
The American Meteorological Society
The American Association for the Advancement of Science
The American Institute of Physics

For information about big business, fossil-fuels, people and organizations involved in GW disinformation see the following!
http://www.realclimate.org/irea_letterJul06.pdf www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf

If you read all or just some of these, you will realise that there are a lot of lies and half truths about GW being passed-off as truth!
Georiga. Hot. Humid. Really hot.
Weissensteinburg (author)  CameronSS7 years ago
You're good...even though other cars may guzzle more, when you have to pay 60 bucks for gas as often as we do...I think it counts as a gas guzzler. Plus..this was conveniently in my drive way =D

Our next car will be a hybrid.
Yeah...I feel like such a hypocrite...I'm such a treehugger, but I love flying, and no one's come up with a way to power airplanes cheaply. So I just fly with a friend in his homebuilt that burns 3 GPH, as opposed to a Cessna 150's 6 GPH, or a Piper Cherokee 180's 10 GPH. There are some solar planes out there, but they have limited range, performance, utility, and affordablity.
Weissensteinburg (author)  CameronSS7 years ago
Wait..your friend has airplane that he built himself? And it burn 3 gallons an hour?
Yup...Woody Pusher, it's kind of doofy-looking, but it's open-cockpit and great fun to fly. Yep, 3 GPH, more or less. Actually, a little more, because we went to a fly -in today, it was 1.74 hours round trip, and we put in 2.979 gallons of gas to top off the tank when we were there.
fullcameron.jpg
Weissensteinburg (author)  CameronSS7 years ago
Wow..that's amazing..
HamO7 years ago
I have enjoyed most of your previous instructables and other posts on different forums but, Global Warming is a hoax, fraud and unprovable concept. It does not exist. Global temperatures and continuously varying and have been since the beginning. Man is not the cause and therefor can not change it. Most of your suggestions have been proven to either not be truly effective or cause more harm in some other way as to make them ill advised. CF bulbs are more expensive and contain mercury which must be dealt with. Most of the efforts we should exert will save us some energy and money but in the long run with have no effect on overall global temperatures. Otherwise nice instructable.
HamO What makes you so certain that GW is a hoax? You cannot have gathered this from any scientific report! It is proven, because the small fact that world is warming. As attested to by numerous scientific reports. It is known to be man-made because of the isotopic finger-print. We can see that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is growing in line with emissions and temperatures are growing in line with growing GHGs. It's not the sun. We have the observations, we have the physics, we have the paleoclimatic record. There are no serious scientists who deny GW is a fact. Even the fossil-fuel funded contrarians are no-longer denying GW as a fact! They just deny it's caused by man's adding of ~ 6 giga tonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere per year.
Wow, You look really really stupid when say things like that. Global Warming is NOT A HOAX. You should see really see an inconvenient truth if you have not yet. This is not an opinion, this is the truth GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL!!!!!!!!!
I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" is anything but a farce really should not be calling anybody stupid. trebuchet03, I'm sorry I got this going again, I thought we hashed it out enough in the forums you posted previously. I'm afraid those who don't believe in GW will not be able to convince those who do and vice versa.
You are as dumb as President Bush (not as smart as a rock.) By the way did you even see An inconvenient Truth or are you just making preconceived notions about the movie.
My bad. I did not realize that you were quote "Old Fat Bald Broke and Married" and that you are from SE Texas. That explains every thing(You being from Texas.)
OK, private mail me and tell me how you know about OFBBM.
It is on your main page smart one.
old.jpg
Old also means very forgetful. LOL
CF bulbs are more expensive and contain mercury which must be dealt with.

Mercury does indeed have to be dealt with -- but that's what's great about CF... You can deal with it and recycle it. The mercury emissions to run a incandescent from a coal fired plant are much higher -- and that's what we can't capture(at least, not yet - and not until there's more accountability for it).

Image sourced from US EPA -- June 2002.

My CF bulbs cost me something like $2.00 each -- compared to the incan. bulbs that I was paying 70 cents each.

GW aside, I think almost everyone can see the benefits of resource conservation and better air/water/etc. quality standards. At least, I wouldn't think that someone wants to breathe polluted air, drink polluted water and have to deal with a lack of energy resources....
mercuryCF.bmp
Great instructable! It is So sad to see most commentators below are taking this as an opportunity to nay say 'Theory of Global Warming'. Well, OK, I understand that you are rich and wealthy in the USA, and you can afford to spend gallons of gasoline for travelling to that 10 mile far McDonalds, or you like keeping the heating on 24hrs... But on the other side of the earth, we have been trying hard to save on energy by doing all these tricks. I am from Eastern Europe, and we've been using fluorescent tubes at homes for the last three decades, we don't heat homes 24hrs, we use LPG for cars to save on gasoline (your car goes slower, but cleaner and cheaper), we airdry all the time (we don't know what a drying machine is), and we do all other things you are talking about, and even more. For example we don't dump our appliance when they fail, but we repair them until they literally fall apart.

I lived in the USA for three years, and I was grossed out with the sickening wasting culture there. You guys should stop being bully and ignorant, and learn from the other parts of the world... I didn't have much prejudice against the USA earlier, but around the time I decided to leave this country I only pitied the consuming culture there... Poor fellas, really.

Anyways. I hope someone will get your point boy. Who gives a crap to Global Warming? I don't care if it is real or not. Can't you see how your environment is ruined with your cars, and garbage and energy consumption?..
According to the latest figures I can find The average emissions per capita in Tonnes CO2 Surely this is evidence of waste! Emissions per Capita [metric Tonnes] United States 20.1 Canada 18.3 Australia/New Zealand 17.7 South Korea10.4 Japan 9.9 OECD Europe 8.2 Russia11.7 Other Non-OECD Europe and Eurasia 5.7 Middle East 6.8 Mexico 3.6 China 3.6 Other Central/South America 2.6 Brazil 1.8 Other Non-OECD Asia 1.7 India1.0 Africa 1.0
If you are talking about me, then let me say this:

In my house use florescent lighting (both compact and standard). We also barely use AC/Heat -- even though it is a cost standpoint rather than a environmental one. We heat the pool (We're in New England, the pool will stay below 80 without it, which is colder than it seems when they day is so hot) with solar.

Our cars aren't the super efficient hybrids, but they aren't nearly as bad as hummers.

Also, make sure you use the word "Theory" correctly. In everyday use, it means something unproven; yet when applied to science/math, it means something that is proven. I don't know where you lived, but it would be impossible to see our whole nation, nowhere near enough to stereotype us like that.
Well, good for you zachninme... I lived in Pittsburgh and all my friends' apartments were overheated in winter. When I say overheated, it is to the level that we had to open windows to keep rooms comfortable enough. And yes, we talked to the landlords many times, it was because other people wanted to walk with their t-shirts in their house in winter... I didn't have a car and I had to wait 45mins for the city bus, and they were chilling the buses so badly in the summer, I had to carry sweaters with me for my bus travels. And yes, I talked to many drivers, and it didn't work, because people liked it that way... Actually, I needed sweaters for school, too, because they were A/C'ing the Carnegie Mellon University buildings to a level of fridge. We had to wear sweaters indoors in summer to keep warm enough. Oh I remember a situation where a friend had to run window AC unit to cool the overheated room in winter!.. Sickening, really... And yes, I travelled around the States, I saw many people and the most conscious people were wasting energy a lot more than we do here in Europe... And stop this stereotyping bullshit, zachninme, you know very well that you are a part of small conscious minority in the USA... And you know very well that it is very hard to change their minds...
"A stereotype is a popularly held belief about a type of person or a group of people which does not take into account individual differences."
So yes, what you were doing was stereotyping, actually in two cases.
And yeah, it is hard to get people to change their minds. I've been trying to do it without anyone rethinking it for awhile now.
Also, thanks for saying that. Helps to know how it is in some urban areas.
Well, you see, you don't know how it is in some urban areas... :-)

Stereotypes are useful when we need to raise awareness...

So, I'll repeat... USA is engrosses me with its waste culture...
Tell me about it. My house is furnished with furniture people threw away. I had to sneak it out of the dumpster, etc, because it's ILLEGAL to take something that someone else threw away. How crazy is that?
I don't know where you lived, but it would be impossible to see our whole nation, nowhere near enough to stereotype us like that.

To be honest.... He's pretty damn near right.... I'm in the Bay Area right now.... while there's a lot of eco friendly people here -- Monday I'm headed to Stanford to go dumpster diving because people are just throwing things out based on the school term cycle.

On my cross country trip, it went from bad -- to worse, to a little better to why the hell can't I see the mountains (smog) to bad. <-- In terms of pollution. I went from high HAA5 in my water to having water with F'ing Alpha particles in it. There's a problem when someone down the street says "I drink it (water) raw."

Just based on my trip, the people I met and some of the places I stopped.... There's pockets of people that don't fit the stereotype whereas the rest of us fall into, at least partially, the stereotype. Stereotypes have to come from somewhere :/
Exactly! Look at my instructable about fixing an LCD monitor. Earth is contaminated more and more with this throw away culture.
ichipoodle7 years ago
Omg, why do you people believe in gore-bull warming? (yes i am making a reference to al gores BULL$#!* about global warming)
Hello, people! Ever heard of the SUN? Maybe it's SOLAR warming. Heck, 30 years ago, it was global cooling that freaked people out and thought it was doomsday. Humans play a role in the situation, a role that is so insignificant it's like a blister: everyone makes a mountain out of a molehill, about how we're all gonna die, and eventually it just bursts, and stings, and is forgotten.
In the caveman era, there was an ice age, but to you see ugga-ooga the caveman driving a hummer??? NO YOU DON'T! Wake up people! Don't be sheeple!
Love and world peace,
ichipoodle
Hate to burst your bubble, but a recent study showed that solar activity has been declining over the past 20 years. The world has been warming at the same rate that CO2 and methane concentration has been increasing. Also, a bunch of people who are under the impression that global warming did not exist recently began claiming that it wasn't our fault that the Earth is heating up, it's the Sun's fault. After all, many planets were found to have increasing temperatures. Then again, they conveniently forgot to mention that the other half is cooling.

Weissensteinburg, you missed an option on step 3. Electric vehicles! Trust me, they work! we've put 6,000 miles on ours in town in just the past year and a half! Also, "Check often that your tires are fully inflated" is a misnomer. Overinflated tires can be just as bad as underinflated tires. "Check often that your tires are properly inflated" is a bit more appropriate.
ichipoodle,
What you say about GW being caused by the sun is interesting, but how can this be?
If what you say was true, then there would be a correlation, but there is not. Since there is no trend in solar output since 1978 and the temperature rise does not correlate with solar output!
Warming does correlate with increasing CO2 concentrations and isotopic analysis of the atmosphere shows that this is from man-made burning of fossil fuels. We are adding ~6 gigatonnes of carbon to the atmosphere per year and are not taking any out.
Weissensteinburg (author)  ichipoodle7 years ago
It's already been confirmed that not everybody here believes in global warming. But there is no doubt that, one, we are running out of oil, and that two, these things are still a good idea for saving money, and using less energy.
Also...they make shower heads that allows stop the water flow by flipping a lever. That way when you soap up you aren't wasting water, one flick of the lever and you have back that perfectly adjusted water temperature...I think I get myself a little cleaner that way, too. Double whammy!
NachoMahma7 years ago
. Great job! Been doing most of those things for years, but I picked up a few new ideas. . I finally converted to CFLs this year - the house is brighter (I was running low-W incands) and I use less energy. Been studying installing a few PVs to lessen my load on The Grid. . Too bad you didn't get many comments. LOL If you would write an iBle that combines GW, religion, and rolling joints, you might get a few more comments. heehee
ichipoodle7 years ago
Point made. I use energy efficient light bulbs, and hybrids are an excellent idea. Run with it! However, when we run out of coal and oil, we're screwed, glued, and tattooed. So, i say the best idea is hydrogen fuel cell technology, or advance electric cars so that way they aren't golf car-ish things that run out of juice faster than you can say "crap". Excellent instructable, Weissensteinburg. Less oil consumption for the win! However, wake me up when there's a convenient source of Alt Energy, okay? Less talk, more walk.
Weissensteinburg (author)  ichipoodle7 years ago
We already have one...the sun. We just need to make it more harness able...more energy per panel.
royalestel7 years ago
I wanted to add a step--plant a garden. Start small (very small) and increase the size yearly. And find ways to save money. Every dollar spent on a consumer good vs. solving the problem yourself creates a larger market for said goods, which must be produced and trucked in, etc. I'm going to cover specifics on how to save money in "How to be a Tightwad" but you get the principle.
nagutron7 years ago
I've added this Instructable to a group I created a few months back, called Living Without Oil:

http://www.instructables.com/group/livingwithoutoil/

There are tons of ways to reduce our carbon footprints, so I've been adding any Instructables relevant to a "post-peak-oil" future, there. Feel free to add others that you find, and discuss other solutions.
Elastometer7 years ago
Stop global warming? Most Met men agree that 'global' warming' is a cyclic thing. It can't be stopped, however, I suppose we can slow it down. Alternative energy is most of the answer if the general public stop whining. Here in UK it would seem that people don't want to see, for instance, wind farms as it would spoil their view of the countryside. I'd personally like to round these bastards up and set light to them.We need affordable alternative energy and I'd rather see a sea of wind generators than several nuclear plants. Remember Chernobyl.
Weissensteinburg (author)  Elastometer7 years ago
I don't think that most people would agree with you that it's cyclic..
Weissensteinburg (author) 7 years ago
This is an instructable for people who believe in global warming. If you don't believe in it, why did you even come to look at what I did?
Cause who doesn't like to argue? :P
Great instructable!!
Another thing you can do is cancel your carbon emissions using
sustainable travel international. Basically you plug in you total distance that flied into the trip calculator and it says that you need to donate blank amount of money to them in which they will plant trees with. Here is the site for air travel.
Weissensteinburg (author)  joejoerowley7 years ago
Have you checked that site out with the BBB? And do you know how much of the donations they take personally, and keep?
I have never done it myself but It looks legit, I mean I know people who actually work for them.
Weissensteinburg (author)  joejoerowley7 years ago
I'm sure they plant trees, but I'd like to know how many cents per dollar go towards that.
lemonie7 years ago
None of the light fittings in my house will take a low energy bulb (and I have 4 in the cupboard).
W/ref heating, it is more efficient to leave your central heating on a low setting continuously, as opposed to having it fire-up to hot twice a day.
(Trust me, it does work)

L
Weissensteinburg (author)  lemonie7 years ago
Really? Every one i've tried them on work. What do you mean by the central heating thing?
Yes really, I have tried.
What I men by the central hating thing, is exactly waht I have said. Run your boiler continuously, but at a low water temperature e.g. 35oC

L
trebuchet037 years ago
Programmable thermostats are pretty cheap nowadays and installation isn't too difficult if you can read instructions and can see in color (or have a friend that can). Air conditioning systems are most efficient at steady state -- which takes a a couple minutes to reach when the compressor starts. So, when you're not home -- turn the a/c way up. Off is preferable, not not always possible in regions with a lot of humidity. It's better to keep an a/c running than to have it switch on and off frequently -- this is why sizing your a/c to your house size is very important. As mentioned, fans are great too... But they don't cool the air -- they work to help evaporative cooling of the body. So when you're not in the room -- switch off the fan ;)