Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Hangtime on March 23, 2006, 08:07:56 AM
-
Rolex brought up something in the Theology thread.. basically; we've screwed the atmosphere, so we're gonna melt.. or something... and the endgame is 20 years off or thereabouts.
As a kickoff, he alluded to the grounding of airtraffic 'worldwide' Sept 11/12 2001 (I thought just North American flight flight profiles were affected) and the resultant temp change became instantly obvious; therefore all previous warming models were suspect.
The whole thing sounds pretty outlandish.. but that could be filtered spin. I dunno what the facts are... or how to even begin to identify beliveable sources. Certainly, the weather's been pretty whacked the past two seasons.. I CAN believe my own eyes, but then again; there's been some whacked seasonal anomolies in my lifetime before.
Whats the deal?
-
yep... it is people like beetle who fly around in grossly polluting jets "traveling" as tourists for no other reason than to get drunk and eat at different resteraunts for a couple of weeks and then go and tell everyone how much it has enriched their lives..
killing the planet just to have a different view from the resteraunt booth...
lazs
-
I think you just broke my troll detector. The needle flew into the red so fast it just broke off.
-
lol
The two of you (Hangtime and Lazs) sure seem to let Beet1e get under your skin.:rofl
-
Did you catch last weeks
60 Minutes the head of NASA's Top Institute Studying the Climate. (http://http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml)
-
Originally posted by Curval
lol
The two of you (Hangtime and Lazs) sure seem to let Beet1e get under your skin.:rofl
Naw Curval I think Hangtime and Lazs is just trying to help Beet1e with his "anger" issues. Great Community here, helping each other and all!
:aok
Mac
-
Personally I've seen the arguments from both sides and it seems there is still an active ongoing discusssion in the science community as to who's correct and what is actually going to happen. People on both sides of the issue are using junk science as well so it's hard to filter out what is fact from fiction.
The fact that the environmentalnazi liberals have gotten involved doesn't make it any easier. To some of them reguardless of what the outcome they see this as a spring board for their long held environmental issues even sudgesting such issues as mandated population control. Now I realize that some of these outspoken wackos are just fringe groups but they are vocal enough to cloud the real meat of the issue.
-
rolex claims that we are becoming a people who simply talk... I am saying that we are becoming a strictly political people who mix politics and science and come up with PC junk science based on what the politicians want to achieve.. scientists are paid to get the "right" results or they don't get on the today show or get that grant money.
Still.... no flights except emergency should be allowed.... tourism is the greatest evil and will be responsible for the deaths of billions.
lazs
-
While I think yer both right (talkers and spin/science) I still don't know what the salient facts (if any) are behind the uproar.
Just what in hell does air traffic have to do with global warming? I mean, fer cripes sake, this planet is freakkin HUGE... to suggest that jet exhaust is what's whackin the atmosphere seems just... ludicrious.
Next.. unless I missed something again, the shutdown in airtraffic supposedly got things warmer... wouldn't that tend to indicate we need MORE air traffic to counteract global warming?
Damn, I gotta be missing some big chunks of info here... all those years of tuning out the tree huggers has just come round ta bite me.
-
The big effect of airtraffic was immediately obvious to me living under J-80 at the date in question. You'd look up and instead of seeing several bands of contrails streaking E-W, there was nothing but blue skies. Jets create contrails. Contrails provide a non-trivial amount of cloud cover. Clouds reflect sunlight.
This effect has little to do with global warming. The NASA guy whom the administration tried to muzzle was the one pointing out the very close correlation between mean temperature on earth and atmospheric CO2 levels.
Global warming is really gonna screw up civilized living, but it by itself probably won't knock off the human population.
Even without global warming, we've got some really interesting times ahead: the whole world is built on cheap non-renewal energy, and we use these to sustain extremely high population in general, and high population densities. It's questionable that we'll "find some other" equally cheap energy source once we restore to the atmosphere all the CO2 that's been stored over the last who knows how many hundreds of millions of years.
As mammals, when resources get scarce, elevated intraspecies aggression is a result. As mammals armed with nukes and biological weapons, things can get dicy.
If I could send a message to what humans there may be 2 centuries from now, it would be, "It was a great party -- sorry about the mess!"
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
(I thought just North American flight flight profiles were affected)
No, the UK shut down its airspace as a precaution too. Good job we did, as it thwarted the attempts by another terror cell who were planning to make a suicide flight from LHR. The two of you (Hangtime and Lazs) sure seem to let Beet1e get under your skin.
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/lmao.gif)
-
Originally posted by Dinger
This effect has little to do with global warming. The NASA guy whom the administration tried to muzzle was the one pointing out the very close correlation between mean temperature on earth and atmospheric CO2 levels.
I didnt read the entire article on the site but I did see the episode from which it is from.
One particular portion of the program impressed me about him.
And to be fair to both sides. He stated that while the current administration is trying to muzzle him or have him understate the problem he also stated that the Clinton administration tried to get him to overstate the problem.
He is refusing to do either instead stating what his true findings are
-
Originally posted by SOB
I think you just broke my troll detector. The needle flew into the red so fast it just broke off.
Har har har:aok
-
Laz,
Is is OK if I continue to be a tourist? I don't fly and I almost never go through more than 250 gallons of diesel a month. I also spend time where we stop and see what the real local folks are like.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
I didnt read the entire article on the site but I did see the episode from which it is from.
One particular portion of the program impressed me about him.
And to be fair to both sides. He stated that while the current administration is trying to muzzle him or have him understate the problem he also stated that the Clinton administration tried to get him to overstate the problem.
He is refusing to do either instead stating what his true findings are
Ah! Sounds like I'd like to see this article... got a linky i can clicky?
-
I read some book (a novel) that said the whole global warming thing was a farce... it had plenty of scientific journal references though, and used them in the book.
One of the simplest things to look at is temperature charts from major cities. It would be reasonable to expect that if there were "global warming" it would show up on something as basic as a graph of average temperature vs time. Some cities have been taking temperature readings since the 18th century, so there is plenty of data available.
For some cities there actually does appear to be some kind of upward trend... but for a lot of cities there isn't. The trend is either flat or actually slightly downward (i.e. the average temperature is dropping as we come closer to the present).
I'm no expert, but I'm going to wait until the experts can agree on it before I move to Colorado.
-
* This has nothing to do with the NASA guy.*
Alright, I'll walk you through the executive summary, then dig up some heavy reading links.
First, I'll preface by saying that I have always been skeptical of many of the claims by 'environmental wackos' and activists such as Greenpeace through the years. Also, that I'm not an emotional or Liberal Arts kinda guy - my undergraduate degree is in Mechanical Engineering - (not too touchy/feely, save the whales type) and my Masters in Political Economics (a boutique field, to say the least) is the cloth that capitalists, like me, are cut from.
I was going to start with the premise that 'apathy' was the real crisis we face, but I decided not to - nobody cares about apathy.
For 3 days after 9/11, the skies were very bright in urban areas from the lack of con trails spread across the skies, and a scientist began studying and plotting the gradient in high to low temperatures from thousands of reporting stations across the country. Matching similar historical data with the 3-day break in con trails, and continuing the recording of the data afterwards, yielded a surprising and puzzling result. The average temperature spiked up 1 deg C for the 3 day period.
That may sound like a small amount, but it isn't. It's huge - but puzzling. We don't consider con trails to be major pollution compared with the massive amount of other particulate matter we belch into the air everyday. And the Earth is heating up from greenhouse gases, right?
If the Earth is supposed to be heating up, and we removed a small amount of the total particulate pollution from the equation for 3 days, why did the temperature go up? Shouldn't it have gone down?
Clouds form from moisture condensing onto dust or pollen particles. As more moisture condenses on each particle, they eventually become heavy enough to fall as rain. But the particulate matter from con trails and other pollution is smaller and less water condenses onto each soot particle, forming clouds that are reflective.
All clouds filter sunlight, but these clouds are reflecting sunlight in addition to filtering it. The old double whammy. The clouds have been cooling us off from the heating effect of greenhouse gases. Dot number 1.
Next, some older studies that were dismissed as being uninteresting (they didn't make sense to us then, so we ignored them) showed that the Earth was getting less sunshine. Less sunshine? Controlled experiments from agriculture, repeated after decades, had shown that the Earth was receiving 20% less sunshine than 50 years ago.
Pan evaporation rates from around the world show an identical 20% reduction. It's identical because evaporation is a function of sunlight, not temperature. Two separate, but previously unconnected data confirmed each other, dot 1 and created dot number 2.
We don't have to connect alot of dots here. All of the models we have been using to estimate the impact of greenhouse gases have been wrong. We were worrying about the temperature of Earth rising 5 deg C over the next hundred years - 5 deg C overall heating is pretty much the breaking point for us humans. We reach 5 deg C rise and we're likely past the point of no return.
What we now know is that we have underestimated the heating effect of greenhouse gases. The clouds from our pollution have been reducing our normal heating from the sun and masked the true impact of the gases. We are far more impacted by greenhouse gases than we thought. The environmental wackos were wrong - it's much worse than their worst case. In fact, it twice as worse as their worst case.
Plug in the new numbers and we'll be at a 5 deg C elevation in 50 years and 10 deg C overall change in less than 100 years. The Earth was last at that temperature 4 million years ago - before man was around. Our goose will be cooked.
We've been like the proverbial frog sitting in a slowing heating pan of water.
We have two forces pulling from each end of a rope. One one side is greenhouse gases heating us up and our particulate pollution cooling us down. The gases are winning since the whole rope is moving toward them. The less we pollute the air, the hotter we get. How's that for a problem we got ourselves into?
So, let's just pollute more? No, because that pollution is killing us another way.
Particulate pollution from our industrial centers in the temperate zone are stopping the natural movement of winds north and south of the equatorial zone that create life-giving monsoons. We're changing our weather patterns and ocean currents, and overheating our tropical waters and equatorial areas. The result is stronger tropical storms from the higher water temperature, and longer seasons of tropical activity.
Okay, that is good news. You want to hear the bad news? The bad news is that we aren't polluting the air as much over the polar areas as we are in the temperate zone. Remember dot number 1? Not as many new, man-made clouds over the poles explains why we're losing the ice caps faster than we could explain. Now we can explain it.
There is a tipping point. The tipping point is the Greenland ice. We are fast approaching a point where we can no longer stop it's melting. You can't build a levee or dam up the water flowing under the ice that is melting it from underneath. It will be unstoppable after the tipping point. New Orleans is just a taste of things to come when you consider the effect of a 3' rise in the Atlantic Ocean along the eastern US seaboard and in Europe.
What is the tipping point? I don't think anyone wants to guess. Can we estimate from temperature alone, or will we just know it after it passes?
There are plenty of scenarios to consider, but none have a happy ending. The climatic changes are already starting and will continue. Exploring all the scenarios is a waste of time. The only thing we have to consider is how much time we have to act, and what action to take.
There is but one solution to the action: We must immediately go onto a war footing to reduce greenhouse gases.
There is but one time to start and that is now. We have only about a ten year window to make that happen, or we cannot stop the heating (and melting) momentum, no matter what we do. If we haven't reduced greenhouse gases significantly in 50 years, we will have cooked our goose. We can't just curb the increase, or reduce the rate of growth or even cap them to todays level. That won't save your children or grandchildren.
If we get to that 5 deg C rise 50 years from now, it's unlikely we'll be unable to stop momentum from pushing to a 10 deg C rise just a few generations from now. That will be Armageddon because we are not a hearty species. How many of us will be left? Fifty percent of all the animal species on the planet now will be extinct or near extinction by then, at those temperatures.
We thought we had a few hundred years before distant relatives would have to deal with it. Now it looks like we, or are children are going to have do it. Vacation is over. You sat on your butt and got fat and lazy through most of your life. It's time to do something with your meaningless life.
The daily nonsense of Hollywood, Iraq, Iran, politicians, etc. is meaningless. This transcends all religions, nationalities, political persuasions, sexual preferences and colors of skin. If you are not part of a grassroots effort to encourage and mobilize your church, synagogue, mosque, school board, neighbors and co-workers to force your government to begin something to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, you are anti-humanity.
Here (http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/PB2/Contents.htm)is some interesting reading to start.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Rolex brought up something in the Theology thread.. basically; we've screwed the atmosphere, so we're gonna melt.. or something... and the endgame is 20 years off or thereabouts.
There is a problem with this 20 year theory. 30 years ago global cooling was going to bring on the next ice age. If its on 60 min it has a spin.
Nuff said.
Bronk
-
Yes, it was a novel, Urchin. Michael Crichton earns millions by writing fiction that seem plausible on the surface by pulling highly selective (and many times mistaken) parts of basic science. Do you believe they really made dinosaurs in his book and movie?
The scientists and professors he visited while 'researching' his book wrote scathing rebuttals to his wholesale twisting of the information they gave him in response to his questions. They unanimously said that he was wrong.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
what his true findings are
Not to nitpick, but the term "true" may have one side but with global warming there is still more than one POV. Scott Pelly (60 min) has been on a one sided rant about global warming for years now. He didn't bother with the other side of the coin with this interview either.
James Hanson has been a shameless self promoter since the late 80's when he first cried "the sky is falling" First he claimed he could prove the temperatures had gone up point something or other but when the numbers didn't match his "true" findings he changed the subject. Now he claims that glacier melts "prove" that man is causing the problem. Hell he might be right but he has been wrong before and sold a book on his "true findings"
He might have more credibility if he didn't try the bad old nasa guys tried to squelch me BS. he has been talking the same stuff with different facts for almost 20 years. he is about as squelched as Bill Maher.
We might be experiencing warming but the world is going to end in 20 years bs is not helping.
-
No global warming. The earth is turning upside down.
-
Originally posted by Bronk
There is a problem with this 20 year theory. 30 years ago global cooling was going to bring on the next ice age. If its on 60 min it has a spin.
Nuff said.
Bronk
Yeah, I remember that as the coming disaster of the time. Complete with how we would need nuclear powered heaters to melt the advanceing glaciers.
-
go ahead mav... you are doing the right thing.
I hope all you guys who are afraid of guns are stocking up on food and stuff that I might need.
lazs
-
but... rolex is convinced... fair enough. We have only a very few years to get it together or face.. whatever.
what would you, rolex, suggest that we do? let me guess what the "scientists" involved suggest....
Spend a whole lot of money on research (and put em on the today show).
lazs
-
Rolex - good post. I posted a thread which may be of interest, but I think you missed it - it's here (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=166510). At that time, many folks were in denial about the global warming problem.
-
"At that time, many folks were in denial about the global warming problem."
And now we are not?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Ah! Sounds like I'd like to see this article... got a linky i can clicky?
LMAO I put the link in my first post in this thread.
60 Minutes the head of NASA's Top Institute Studying the Climate. (http://http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml) [/B][/QUOTE]
I dont know if it mentiones it in the article as I didnt read the entire thing. From breifly scanning over it I am assuming its pretty much the transcripts f what he said on the show.
But I know he said it. I saw him say it
-
Originally posted by Krusher
Not to nitpick, but the term "true" may have one side but with global warming there is still more than one POV. Scott Pelly (60 min) has been on a one sided rant about global warming for years now. He didn't bother with the other side of the coin with this interview either.
I beleive I said "his" true findings;)
-
The amount of information available on this topic is rather large. And just as many opinions seem to pervey it as well.
Do not forget meteorologists also hold that the Earth goes through cycles of weather. From one ice age to the next is a rather long period of time, but it happens. During the time between ice ages, the Earth's atmospheric termperatures rise and fall. Some metoerologists feel (I say *feel* as there is no way to actually prove it) we are on the leading edge of the high temperatures and in a few hundred years the temperatures will peak, and the start of the next ice age will be begin.
None of this happens overnight, and after the start it will take another serverl hundred years before the Earth is an ice ball again and then it will warm and start the process over again.
Long before the next Ice Age happens the Moon will make its departure. This will end life on Earth before the next Ice Age happens.
The Moon departure is real and easily verified. The weather stuff is still somewhat more art than science and almost impossible to pin down.
I could care less about the so-called "global warming". Seems it is going to happen in spite of us amd mankind will all be dead once the Moon makes its departure. Hmmm. Mankind just does not stand much of a chance at all.
-
Yeah...what Skuzzy said!!!
It's NOT like this is gonna happen in "2 weeks"....
:D
Mac
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Long before the next Ice Age happens the Moon will make its departure. This will end life on Earth before the next Ice Age happens.
The Moon departure is real and easily verified. The weather stuff is still somewhat more art than science and almost impossible to pin down.
I could care less about the so-called "global warming". Seems it is going to happen in spite of us amd mankind will all be dead once the Moon makes its departure. Hmmm. Mankind just does not stand much of a chance at all.
:confused:
Whats the moon going to be departing from? Earths orbit?
-
i saw on TV that jellystone park is going to explode and make mankind exstink, or a big rock will hit earth and wipe everything out, or the earth well lose the magnetic field and the suns rays will fry us all.
almost forgot , the dollar will be worthless, muslims will take over the world,china will take over the world,north korea or iran will start ww3,bird flu or terrorists will kill 1 million americans,i have to stop now because i think the rays from my monitor are giving me skin cancer and i have to put on sun screen.
-
The only Armagedon you pervs need to wory about is the Gerbel by that name up your rectom.
We are all going to die, it is not going to take some big event to do it, it is just how life works. Worry about this BS is stupid.
But if you are worried about and have kids your prolly a selfish salamander! :D
-
Originally posted by Urchin
:confused:
Whats the moon going to be departing from? Earths orbit?
Yes. It has been departing since it started orbiting. It moves away from the Earth at the rate of about 1 mile per year.
-
Sorry Skuzzy, I don't buy the moon theory, since we populate the earth with big fat Americans, that creates more mass. More mass means more gravitational pull. At this rate, the moon should be getting closer by now. :D
-
Hehe. I wish it was a theory. But it will be a rather long time before the Moon completely departs. However, the further out it gets, the less influence it has on Earth, which will have an impact. Not a good one either.
-
So whats this mucky muck I've been hearing about the poles reversing? In was in the news some time ago, now its not. Anyone?
-
The magnetic poles are due for a reversal. Another one of those cyclic things that happens.
-
yeah the Polar ice caps are melting so probaly another 50 years ocean level will rise a lot
-
So they will be communists again? Huh. Okay, thanks for the info! :D
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Yes. It has been departing since it started orbiting. It moves away from the Earth at the rate of about 1 mile per year.
It's more like an inch or so per year. From what I've read, the orbit is increasing, but I've yet to find a scientific opinion that the moon will escape orbit altogether.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Lunar_libration_with_phase2.gif)
-
Originally posted by Sandman
It's more like an inch or so per year. From what I've read, the orbit is increasing, but I've yet to find a scientific opinion that the moon will escape orbit altogether.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Lunar_libration_with_phase2.gif)
Cool Gif, Sandy!
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Cool Gif, Sandy!
I thought so too. :cool:
Here's the source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lunar_libration_with_phase2.gif
-
Oh poop. You are right Sandman. It is an inch a year.
There are computer models showing it will depart. Under normal circumstances, if the Moon was not being effected by other gravitational fields (i.e. the Sun), it would not depart.
There was a NASA special on one night running a model showing how it would depart and what effect it would have on Earth. However, that information is not on NASA's WEB site, so I am not sure where to point you for it.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Did you catch last weeks
60 Minutes the head of NASA's Top Institute Studying the Climate. (http://http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml)
I read the article the other day. I think it shoudl really worry the public.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Oh poop. You are right Sandman. It is an inch a year.
There are computer models showing it will depart. Under normal circumstances, if the Moon was not being effected by other gravitational fields (i.e. the Sun), it would not depart.
There was a NASA special on one night running a model showing how it would depart and what effect it would have on Earth. However, that information is not on NASA's WEB site, so I am not sure where to point you for it.
What will happen when the moon is gone???:confused:
-
Some post comment comments. :)
Yes indeed, there are some skeptics. There always are skeptics to all scientific papers and findings. That is welcomed by all scientists as a means to force more stringent testing of their means, findings and logic. With a system as complicated as a planet, there are an enormous number of influences. You'll note that even hitech continously tries to improve his flight model, but only with known and verifiable physics and testing, not based on a non physics-based agenda.
Lets talk about Dr. Hansen (the "NASA guy").
In 1988, he created a stir with his testimony to Congress by presenting a graph of temperature rise modeling with 3 scenarios, since the future is always unknowable, including future CO2 emission and even volcanic eruption. He factored in a large eruption for 1995 as a placeholder (Mt. Pinatubo erupted in 1991, by chance).
The press and his critics (industry) jumped on his worse case projection of CO2 emission as being inflammatory, but Dr. Hansen testified at the time that the mid-range scenario was obviously his best estimate. Dr. Hansen has always agreed that any model needs to adjusted and modified over time and welcomes all data, without agenda.
His biggest critic, Patrick Michaels, testified before Congress ten years later and erased the low and mid-range scenario from Dr. Hansen's graph, leaving the upper scenario only and claiming that Dr. Hansen's projection was 300% off.
Well, guess what? Dr. Hansen's mid-range scenario projected in 1988 was very close to the actual observed mean global temperature. He was right. He also said, in 1999, that we needed another decade of observation to better tune the models. He, and the vast majority of scientists, agreed that observation of the poles will provide the best clues to whether the model is getting better.
If Dr. Hansen were in this for fame and money, he wouldn't be a government employee.
-----
Since then, the data is showing that our total system is more sensitive to CO2 than we thought and the surface mean temperature rise of the planet is showing an exponential curve, not a flat rise for scenarios based on CO2 emission.
-----
You should read ^ again. It's going to be awhile for the significance of this to filter down from the scientists, since they don't have very good handlers or PR people. The traditional environmental groups aren't any better.
I never said the world would end in 10 or 20 years. I said that we have probably a 10 year window to start taking action on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. And I never said this is an American problem.
It will take enormous guts to change our complete global thinking on energy production and usage within a generation. I'm not optimistic that it can be done.
I guess I'll respond to the cynics with this: what if the vast majority of scientists are right, and those of you who know next to nothing about it are wrong?
What are the economic and global political consequences? Later...
-
Originally posted by RAIDER14
What will happen when the moon is gone???:confused:
The Moon is what keeps Earth's rotation somewhat stable. It's gravitional pull exerts enough effect to keep the Earth from going into a tumbling rotation.
You know the tilt the Earth does twice every orbit of the Sun? That tilt is halted by the Moon's gravitational pull. Without it, the Earth would rotate very erratically.
Not to mention the reflected radiation from the Moon helps maintain a more tolerable temperature in absence of the Sun.
And there is the tidal problem. Tides help keep the oceans currents running. Without the currents, in some parts of the ocean, glaciers could drift farther south, melting which would eventually cause the oceans levels to rise faster than they could be evaporated away by the Sun. As the Moon would no longer be there to aid evaporative effects at night.
Lots of bad stuff will happen when the Moon says so-long, to our little blue ball.
-
after much studying of the problem i have come to this conclusion.
the cause of global warming is the excessive use of stop lights, let me expound.
a car/truck/suv/ect has kinetic energy when moving, when it is forced to stop the brakes turn that energy into heat, it is the excessive stopping at red lights that sends all that heat into the atmosphere.
to save the planet we need to get rid of stop lights,it will also have the effect of reducing the population and that is also a good thing.
-
Wait.... you guys mean ..... WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE !?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
-
How much of an increase in cost can we expect in the next 20 to 30 years for refrigeration of beer?
For every global warming theory supporter you find ,you can find one or two more shooting the theory down.
I would say global warming, even if it did exist, would be way down on the list of "Things To Wring Hands About".
-
so we ain't gonna get snuffed suddenly by the weather.
bummer.
....'cause that would be ironic. I mean, after waging the war and terror, having to share my converstions and locations with the NSA by imperial decree, having airport security look up my bellybutton every time I want to hop on a shuttle, and then having to cough $3.69 outta the same orifice fer a gallon of gas...
..it would be somehow... i guess... poetic to just get blown away by a class 5 hurricane here on Long Island next season, having been confidently assured that 'global warming is no big deal.
-
I never knew that Davy Crockett couldn't spell.
party of ladys/partisapate/arival
:lol
-
Well let me tell ya something.
I live in a country with lots of glaciers.
They are melting and quite fast.
In Greenland (next door) they are also melting - quite fast.
On the Poles the ice is melting quite fast.
This was predicted, and is happening even faster than predicted.
So you can toss around any temperature numbers from various cities, - it won't make a difference. The warming is a fact.
-
We need a lot more nuclear power.
-
Angus - unfortunately some people have closed minds, and your sound advice will fall on the deaf ears in some cases.
-
Lol, did you see "Eric the Viking", - a sort of a Monty Python comedy?
Anyway, there was this king who didn't belive his island was sinking, even when sinking himself!
-
Ok... so what do we do about the moon departing.. the coming ice age... the global warming... an errant comet... the reversing of the poles...
So long as I can get premium for under 3 bucks a gallon I don't really care.
So how come only a couple of scientists and rolex and beet and angus know about all this... I mean damnit all!!!!!
This should be even more important than who will win American Idol!!
this is huge! More important maybe even than Winchester dropping the model 70 and the model 94 from production...
I better go buy an newspaper sometime soon... maybe even watch Fox news and CNN..
lazs
-
Rolex... Ok, since we are asking..
Talked to an engineer the other day who has a friend who's panels are in the 80% efficiancy range using focuwsing mirrors.. think 2 4' x 8' panels to power a house. Think about $2,000 for the entire system and think about the whole system going on sale a lowes or home depot and then a year or two later and Sams club... Your energy bill to run your house would essentialy be zero..
Now this could happen in the next couple years... solar allready is working to make for zero energy bills but at a cost of about $20k (half what it was 10 years ago tho)
So just suppose.... suppose no one had to hook up to the grid except for emergency and power plants ceased to exist?
How would that affect your scenario of gloom?
lazs
-
lazs2:
"So how come only a couple of scientists and rolex and beet and angus know about all this"
How comes you do not?
The view of gloom is manyfold.
Firstly, we do not know where the warming will end.
Cooling needs energy as well :D
Secondly, vast areas will go under water.
So, I suggest, that if you want to save on gas and heating bills that you move to Saudi Arabia :D
-
Originally posted by beet1e
I never knew that Davy Crockett couldn't spell. :lol
That can be added to a long list of things you don`t know.
Crockett had a little more important things to worry about than pleasing some chap from England with his spelling. Things such as establishing and helping in the running of a young nation and fighting for the independence of Texas. Don`t worry about Mr. Crockett`s spelling. He did just fine.
If I were you I wouldn`t let it bother me. With the approaching global warming you should be instructing restaurant owners to raise their establisments on stilts to avoid being submerged. That way you will have places to quinch your thirst for knowledge. :rofl
So.....the sky is falling, global warming is coming. an asteroid has our name on it and I might add that a prediction for one of the worst hurricane seasons for Texas has been predicted.
Who here has the answers to avoid all this?
Maybe we can come up with something to change what mother nature is up to and has been up to as long as history has been recorded.
Maybe we can come up with some way to use chemicals or what not to Get R Done. That`s worked out great for us in the long run in other areas. :aok
-
Global warming is there.
It can be countered with.
It was expected to come and could have been countered with before, if not for people with light minds in ample numbers.
-
angus, plant flowers
-
Originally posted by Angus
Global warming is there.
Where angus?
It can be countered with.
Countered with...what?
-
Global warming is where?
On the Globe of course. Very noticable on areas nearer to the poles, as well as with energy of the weather such as the recent twisters and Hurricanes.
-
Well as far as I know there has been twisters and hurricanes that goes back as far as recorded history. There has also been constant climate changes as far back as can be found.
Now....countered with what?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
So how come only a couple of scientists and rolex and beet and angus know about all this... I mean damnit all!!!!!
Maybe because we have a thirst for knowledge, and actually take the trouble to read the news and learn about this little blue ball of ours? Speaking of which...
...Angus - I read another two articles about this in today's paper - Cities in danger as scientists predict rapid sea level rise (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/03/24/wflood24.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/03/24/ixhome.html) - Daily Telegraph Science Editor
- Global warming doubles glacial quakes (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/03/24/wflood124.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/03/24/ixhome.html)
Looks like the UK will become an even "tinier little island". So long as I can get premium for under 3 bucks a gallon I don't really care.
Lazs - not picking on you, but that sort of ostrich like denial of the problem is half the problem. If it were just you that felt this way, it wouldn't be so bad. But there are thousands of people - including high ranking politicians - who feel the same way, and George Bush is probably one of them. Countered with...what? - jack
Well, if you think back to my Will the USA green up its act? (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=166510) thread, Rotax had the answer - to put 8,000,000 rolls of Seran Wrap into space. :rofl Maybe we can come up with something to change what mother nature is up to...
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/rolleyes.gif) It's not Mother Nature, it's us!!! Or rather it's you. Of all the countries in the world, the US is by far the biggest contributor of carbon emissions at 25% of the world total. When I cited this in my earlier thread, a cheeky chappie from down under dismissed my figures thus: "Given those figures are guesses by hippies based on energy use I think you're screwed in this thread." Erm... hippies? US Department of Energy, actually. What makes matters worse is that the world's second largest greenhouse gas contributor is China at 15%, but it must be remembered that China is America's third largest trading partner, and that much of China's economy (and greenhouse gas output) comes as a result of producing goods destined for the US.Maybe we can come up with some way to use chemicals or what not to Get R Done.
Hmm - one of several "maybes" in your post. Ah yes, I recognise this one - W's magic chemical spray. Oh puhleeeezzze! (http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/rolleyes.gif)
-
That little blue ball of ours goes through weather cycles beet and we cannot stop it. History proves it.
Our world is a dynamic one. Very little about it stays the same from year to year, millenium to millenium.
We cannot stop, interrupt, or alter that dynamic. What effect we do have is pretty small in the overall scheme of things. There will always be scientists reacting to changes while only being armed with but a small amount of the data points really needed to predict things as it pertains to our world.
Global warming is a naturally ocurring cycle we cannot stop. We can hurry it a bit, but we cannot stop it. One thing about this whole topic. Anyone can find anything they want to support thier stand.
In the end, it is nothing more than speculation. I am not a big fan of reacting to speculation in panic mode. Almost always ends up being a very bad thing to do.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Angus - unfortunately some people have closed minds, and your sound advice will fall on the deaf ears in some cases.
I believe everyone is in agreement that they are melting. As to how much human intervention has to do with the melting? Well, as one naturalist I spoke with put it: "We're very arrogant to think that we, humans, are the sole reason for global warming..."
-
Skuzzy, you don't get it.
He's actually BEEN to Qatar on vacation.
See?
-
I know what I am going to do... buy up as much land in Colorado's high country and sell it to all you idiots when the oceans melt and you come squaling to us for refuge!
But... the key is I will maintain the water rights myself!
MUHAHAHAHAHAHA I will be the 733t water merchant!
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
I know what I am going to do... buy up as much land in Colorado's high country and sell it to all you idiots when the oceans melt and you come squaling to us for refuge!
But... the key is I will maintain the water rights myself!
MUHAHAHAHAHAHA I will be the 733t water merchant!
I think the biggest fear is, those that are filthy rich are worried that the rednecks that live on alittle higher ground are going to be the next rulers of the real estate market! :D
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
We cannot stop, interrupt, or alter that dynamic. What effect we do have is pretty small in the overall scheme of things. There will always be scientists reacting to changes while only being armed with but a small amount of the data points really needed to predict things as it pertains to our world.
Quote from the first link...
Prof McGuire said a "doomsday" scenario would see a 275ft rise but this was extremely unlikely and would only happen if we do nothing about carbon emissions, leading to a runaway greenhouse effect.
-
Hoookay..
We're all jugglers now...
in the air now...
The War on Terror
The War on the American Middle Class
The War on Drugs
The War on the Constitution
The War on Islam
The War on Border Security
..and Mother Natures lil War on the Human Infestation.
"thank you sir, may i have another?"
-
Originally posted by beet1e
It's not Mother Nature, it's us!!![/size] Or rather it's you. Of all the countries in the world, the US is by far the biggest contributor of carbon emissions at 25% of the world total. [/IMG] [/B]
Awwww the Evil U.S. Empire. Knew it was going to get worked in, but it`s always amazing to see how you are going to do it.
Pulse rate--------> over 30.
Hmm - one of several "maybes" in your post. Ah yes, I recognise this one - W's magic chemical spray. Oh puhleeeezzze!
No Beetle, as usual, you are assuming and you don`t recognize anything.
It was actualy sarcasm to the fact that anytime someone comes up with a perceived solution to a problem, it , as a rule, screws up way more than it could ever accomplish on the plus side.
Do try to keep up old bean.
I`m still waiting on all the theoretical sloutions to the theoretical problems from thos who seem so concerned on this board.
I , also, remember the ice age returning theory. "Coming to an earth near you soon" back down the road. I get a little chilly from time to time, but haven`t froze solid yet. :)
This year , in our area of Texas, we had a pretty bad drought. Very, very little rain at times whn we normaly get rain. The lake I live on went to between eight to ten feet below normal pool level. Global warming was mentioned more than once for the cause of this.
Last week we had flooding in our area and areas around us.( I`m sure some thought the great floods of biblical times were returning :)) The lake is on the rise back to it`s normal state.
I have seen this cycle a few times since I graced the earth with my presence. :aok
It`s mother nature. Screw with it and see how far you get.
-
"Now....countered with what?"
With less CO2 and more vegetation for instance.
Of course our earth has been through many a rough cycle. What makes this particular one interesting is
1: It was predicted
2: It is coming true and even more than predicted.
The warming curve is quite fast. Still, as a sidenote, the Glaciers up where I live were smaller than this 1100 years ago. Europe's biggest glacier today was split into 2 smaller glaciers untill perhaps the 12th century.
So indeed there are always changes. Here is another sidenote.
A very rough volcanic eruption can bring so many a dark particle into the atmosphere that it cools, - and quite a bit, - by simply blocking the sun away. Now, the greenhouse effect is the opposite, simple as that.
And glaciers sometimes give a lot out of water in other ways, - where I live.
Next sunday, we have an evacuation excercize. Some 90 km's away is a nasty volcano hiding under a massive icecap. When she blows, she melts the ice quite quickly, and a floodwave occurs, heading our way with the mass of 200.000 cubic metres pro second. Unstoppable and the biggest, meanest "river" in the world, with 1000 tonne chunks of Ice floating like champagne corks in the watermass.
So, point being, there is a lot of things happening that we cannot do anything about, but we CAN do something about the CO2 effect.
Oh, and a question. Someone above in the thread said he used only 250 gallons of gas a month. Is that private use? I run a farm, and don't use that much....
-
Originally posted by Angus
"Now....countered with what?"
With less CO2 and more vegetation for instance.
I don`t see enough vegatation being planted "by hand" to make any noticeable difference.(Read that as machinery output) So......how do you suggest this gets done without creating more CO2
than it takes care of?
the Glaciers up where I live were smaller than this 1100 years ago.
:)
So, point being, there is a lot of things happening that we cannot do anything about, but we CAN do something about the CO2 effect.
And , once again, I ask what? How is this going to be done without doing more damage than it supposedly is going to help.
-
Nuclear.
We Kahn DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO it!
About damn time we started crackin atoms fer power; BIG time.
-
You mindless pathetic humans.....
Look at what you gotten yourselves into.... I'll give you a few clues on how to fix your lil blue ball and be done with you.
problems:
Global Warming
Glaciers Melting
Famine
Wars
Take the water melting from the Glaciers to the Deserts of the World. Quinch the Thrist of these dry lands and make them fertile again. Crops to feed the hungered, trees to heal the atmosphere.
Stop fighting and play nice.
As for the dam Moon...... it's overperked anyways. Make a new one.
Problem solved........next?
Mac
I must be going now, the Mothership will soon be near.
:noid
-
Hah! I have to agree with HangTime! :o No nukes is bad nukes... expensive, and not without problems, which now include the security issue. But it's clean, ie. zero emissions into the atmosphere.
As for processing nuclear waste, it can be done, provided we don't all go SuperNimby about the issue, and dump it on some poor unsuspecting third world country.
-
Yah, best place to dump it would not be some third world country.
Better put it all in say.... England. Lots of old mines there.
-
Ohhh "old mines" thought you said "old mimes"....
:D
Mac
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Quote from the first link...
And why would he have anymore credibility than the other scientists who claim it is a normal cycle of the Earth to go through? Or how about the scientists who also say there is nothing abnormal with the weather at all? Or how about the scientists who claim it is all caused by methane from cows? Or how about the scientists who claim it is all from the dead bodies we bury everyday?
Grab a hold of anything you want and jump up and down and yell. It makes diddily poop difference as I pretty much have surmised there are a lot of idiotic scientists around who have no clue what is going on, but like to pretend they do.
Like I said:
In the end, it is nothing more than speculation. I am not a big fan of reacting to speculation in panic mode. Almost always ends up being a very bad thing to do.
-
It never ceases to amaze me that there are people who claim to be "scientists" all talking about "global warming" like it never happened before. I suppose if global warming is the fault of people there never were any previous ice ages and warming cycles. I find that very very hard to fathom, since the evidence other "scientists" have provided indicate that there have been numerous cooling and warming cycles ALL of them well before industrialized human society ever came about.
Gee I wonder who caused them to happen? I know!! No doubt BOOSH did it! That's the solution we must all blame BOOSH, or is it we must all have waffles???
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Or how about the scientists who claim it is all caused by methane from cows?
I didn't know Dago was a scientist!
Skuzz, do a google search on "causes of global warming". There is page after page of hits. All of them cite greenhouse gas emissions as a leading cause - except articles like those by Michael Crichton, who blames Aliens! :lol
Even the US Government has admitted, for the first time, that it's a problem caused by humans: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2023835.stm
The US Government has acknowledged for the first time that man-made pollution is largely to blame for global warming.
But it has again refused to shift its position on the Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty designed to mitigate global warming which the Bush administration rejected last year. The White House had previously said there was not enough scientific evidence to blame industrial emissions for global warming.
-
Sure, Google is an omniscient and unbiased authority on the entire universe.
Regarding the environment wigging out, it's more than enough of a reason to screw off from this planet.
We could set the destinations of each lump of people relative to how well they get along here.. Al Q & Co. can **** off one way, and do their own thing somewhere far, far away while everyone else heads the opposite way:lol
-
I concur and recommend that AlQ and company colonize SOL.
-
Originally posted by moot
Sure, Google is an omniscient and unbiased authority on the entire universe.
Really? I thought it was a search engine. :confused:
-
Skuzzy; if you would have to travel from point A to point B and you'd have two possible routes; one which might have few mines here and there and another one, maybe bit longer but a safe one, which route would you take ?
-
Originally posted by beet1e
I didn't know Dago was a scientist!
Skuzz, do a google search on "causes of global warming". There is page after page of hits. All of them cite greenhouse gas emissions as a leading cause - except articles like those by Michael Crichton, who blames Aliens! :lol
Even the US Government has admitted, for the first time, that it's a problem caused by humans: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2023835.stm
Again, what makes it credible? Have you actuaally done the research yourself, or are you just spewing forth the rhetoric from others?
I could write a paper, claim to be a scientist, and get it published in the press, and there you go.
Show me one credible government body on this planet. Nevermind, you can't. None of them are.
Staga, I cannot relate to your question at all. What is the point you are trying to make? Quit tap dancing and spit it out.
-
angus said... "Firstly, we do not know "
Yep... and that about covers it but.... if you want to get all panicky and womanly over it there are any of a number of "the sky is falling" scenarios that you can subscribe to.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Again, what makes it credible? Have you actuaally done the research yourself, or are you just spewing forth the rhetoric from others?
I could write a paper, claim to be a scientist, and get it published in the press, and there you go.
Show me one credible government body on this planet. Nevermind, you can't. None of them are.
Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance. Sounds like the first, with a hint of the second. As I have said on this board before, when scientists can do "miracles" like predicting solar eclipses years in advance - what with all the 3 dimensional trigonometry that must involve - that tells me that they know what they're talking about. The overwhelming theme from scientists around the world is that global warming is being exacerbated or even caused directly by greenhouse gases. That BBC link shows that even the US government now accepts that global warming is being caused by US. Of course I could do as you have done here, and refute these scientific findings, but I think that would be unwise.
-
Is the USA responsible for thawing ice caps on Mars as well?
jpl mars global surveyor (http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/newsroom/20050920a.html) Sep 20 2005
And for three Mars summers in a row, deposits of frozen carbon dioxide near Mars' south pole have shrunk from the previous year's size, suggesting a climate change in progress.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance.
Beatings.
You missed beatings.
which, considering the source; is somewhat out of character.
-
As more and more evidence pours it, it's beginning to appear that it's quite possible that
WE'RE ALL GONNA DIIIIEEEEEEEeeeeeee!
Stay tuned, film at 11.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance. Sounds like the first, with a hint of the second. As I have said on this board before, when scientists can do "miracles" like predicting solar eclipses years in advance - what with all the 3 dimensional trigonometry that must involve - that tells me that they know what they're talking about. The overwhelming theme from scientists around the world is that global warming is being exacerbated or even caused directly by greenhouse gases. That BBC link shows that even the US government now accepts that global warming is being caused by US. Of course I could do as you have done here, and refute these scientific findings, but I think that would be unwise.
If you chose to blindly accept someone's opinion. Go for it.
As far as I am concerned, there is no concensous about what is causing global warming. I see as many articles refuting green house gases as not. It is all speculation until it is proven.
Chose to believe what you want. I'll stick with the logical conclusions about the weather cycles. They have been proven, unlike what you are ranting about.
-
But he's BEEN to a hot place where the ice in his drink was MELTING!
-
Well heck, that changes everything.
EVERYONE STOP DRIVING!!! ER, ONLY IN AMERICA, AS IT IS OUR FAULT.
QUIT EATING MEXICAN FOOD!! OR ANY SPICY FOOD FOR THAT MATTER!!
JT,..MAKE THAT LAST RUN TO OUR PLACE!!! WE CAN USE THE BLUE BELL TO CORRECT GLOBAL WARMING!! YES!!!!!!!!
-
if greenhouse gas is the problem then ban greenhouses.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Yah, best place to dump it would not be some third world country.
Better put it all in say.... England. Lots of old mines there.
After a few years of mutations, the english may not be the most boring people on the planet anymore!!!
Great plan Toad!!
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
If you chose to blindly accept someone's opinion. Go for it.
Oh no! - Skuzzy has zapped me with a split infinitive. I concede - :lol
But LOL - I know it's Friday - have you been drinking? :eek: Yes, it is America's fault, but not ALL America's fault. Only 25%, if the US Department of Energy is to be believed. :D
Hehe, Mr. Toad - I don't take ice in my beer or wine, and I'm not a spirits man! Can you imagine it - ice... in... wine? Only in America!
Actually, I can go back to Qatar whenever I like, but it will be too bloody hot - gets to 48° at the height of summer. I'll have to wait till towards the end of the year.
-
You mean a split infinitive is all I needed to do? Sheesh. Could have save myself a wall or text, wear and tear on the keyboard and fingers.
Not to mention I could have spent more time at lunch driving around.
But I am having Blue Bell right now. The Mexican food at lunch was terrific too. So I am doing my part to help. :aok
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
But I am having Blue Bell right now. The Mexican food at lunch was terrific too. So I am doing my part to help. :aok
Sounds like you'll be farting your arse off, thereby adding to the problem! :aok
-
Just testing the theory. :)
-
now THATS science.
:aok
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Yes, it is America's fault, but not ALL America's fault. Only 25%, if the US Department of Energy is to be believed. :D
You aren't talking about the Mars ice caps are you?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
You aren't talking about the Mars ice caps are you?
No.
-
So are you saying that the melting of polar caps on Mars is not America's fault, or are you ignoring the phenomenon altoghther?
-
I'm ignoring the phenomenon altoghther.
-
Quite right. Afterall it is Mars. Just because it is a planetary body does not mean it could have anything to do with Earth. I mean, cyclic weather changes at one planet does not mean there will be changes elsewhere. What can you expect from a planet which does not rotate in the same plane as Earth?
What happens to Mars should stay at Mars. Earth is a whole different planet and we have the theories to prove it! :)
Back to the Blue Bell.
-
Yes, there are no humans porking up Mars with carbon emissions, or driving gas guzzlers that get 5-6mpg. :aok
-
And yet it still goes through cyclic changes. Dang those Martian weather patterns!!!
-
And are the polar icecaps in meltdown mode? Hmmm?
-
Mars? Yes, they are.
-
Well, Mars IS closer to the sun... wait - no it isn't
-
Originally posted by beet1e I'm ignoring the phenomenon altogether.
Earlier in the thread, denial was bad
Originally posted by beet1e
Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance. Sounds like the first, with a hint of the second. As I have said on this board before, when scientists can do "miracles" like predicting solar eclipses years in advance - what with all the 3 dimensional trigonometry that must involve - that tells me that they know what they're talking about. The overwhelming theme from scientists around the world is that global warming is being exacerbated or even caused directly by greenhouse gases. That BBC link shows that even the US government now accepts that global warming is being caused by US. Of course I could do as you have done here, and refute these scientific findings, but I think that would be unwise.
(Please note I corrected my own tipograffikal eror)
-
Yes, I'm ignoring it - because there's nothing I can do about it. Even on earth, my personal contribution to global warming is only 0.000000007% of the world total.
-
Since your personal contribution to global warming is only 0.000000007% of the world total, to be consistant you should ignore our global warming as well.
-
No, because it's 25% of the world total, as compared with 2% for the UK.
-
Theory. Let`s all pick a theory and jump on it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arguments Against The Global Warming Theory:
Humans Are Not Responsible For Rising Temperatures; Other Theories on Why the Earth's Temperature is Rising:
Many scientists have suggested that other factors are responsible for rising temperatures, such as natural changes in the number and size of volcanic eruptions or an increase in the sun's output. Such phenomena are referred to as climate forcings. This would mean that humans are not responsible for the increase in temperature over the last 140 years.
Although the media says that the last ten years were the hottest, the most significant rise temperatures reflect a took place in the first half of this century.
Also paleoclimate perspective provides information about long term changes in different climate forcings that may be the underlying cause of the observed climate change.
Inconclusive / Incorrect Data; There is No Evidence of Global Warming Actually Happening:
According to The Leipzig Declaration, "There does not exist today a general scientific consensus about the importance of greenhouse warming from rising levels of carbon dioxide. In fact, many climate specialists now agree that actual observations from weather satellites show no global warming whatsoever--in direct contradiction to computer model results." It adds, "based on all the evidence available to us, we cannot subscribe to the politically inspired world view that envisages climate catastrophes and calls for hasty actions. For this reason, we consider the drastic emission control policies likely to be endorsed by the Kyoto conference--lacking credible support from the underlying science--to be ill-advised and premature". 1 This would mean that there is a possibility that global warming could happen, but right now there is no real evidence already happening.
Satellite data also undermines the theory of global warming. Most of the data suggesting that there is global warming was collected over the last 140 years from recorded temperatures. Now satellites are used to record temperatures. Satellites, which measure temperatures all over the world, they show no real trend in any direction, in fact in recent decades, they show a global cooling.
Another argument that this side presents is the inconsistency of the other side's claims. One negative prediction of
those that are concerned about global warming is the increase in severe storms and hurricanes. Those that minimize
the threat of global warming suggest that severe storms and hurricanes have actually decreased in the past 50 years.
Patrick J. Michaels, a professor of environmental science, says that, "carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere at a rate below that of most climate-change scenarios because it is being increasingly captured by growing vegetation." 2 This is inconsistent with the global warming theory, which suggests that there should be a strong relationship between carbon dioxide, released by humans, and rising temperature.
The fact that there is inconclusive evidence to prove the global warming theory is another argument critics of the
theory put forth. Another expert on environmental science, Richard Lindzen says, "We don't have any evidence that
this [ global warming ] is a serious problem ,..." 3
The Increase in Temperature is not necessarily a Bad Thing:
Some of the critics of the global warming theory also suggest that even if the earth is warming it is not a cause for
alarm. Historical evidence supports the idea that warmer climate intervals are beneficial for human activities, food
production, and health. Cold periods have had the opposite effect.
-
Jackall - don't be afraid to quote your (5 year old) links! Here, I'll do it for you: http://www.cs.usask.ca/undergrads/kmb129/490/assignments/assignment_1/against_global_warming.html
Undergraduates homework assignment? :lol
-
THE LEIPZIG DECLARATION ON GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
As independent scientists concerned with atmospheric and climate problems, we -- along with many of our fellow citizens -– are apprehensive about emission targets and timetables adopted at the Climate Conference held in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997. This gathering of politicians from some 160 signatory nations aims to impose on citizens of the industrialized nations, -- but not on others -- a system of global environmental regulations that include quotas and punitive taxes on energy fuels to force substantial cuts in energy use within 10 years, with further cuts to follow. Stabilizing atmospheric carbon dioxide -- the announced goal of the Climate Treaty -- would require that fuel use be cut by as much as 60 to 80 percent -- worldwide!
Energy is essential for economic growth. In a world in which poverty is the greatest social pollutant, any restriction on energy use that inhibits economic growth should be viewed with caution. We understand the motivation to eliminate what are perceived to be the driving forces behind a potential climate change; but we believe the Kyoto Protocol -- to curtail carbon dioxide emissions from only part of the world community -- is dangerously simplistic, quite ineffective, and economically destructive to jobs and standards-of-living.
More to the point, we consider the scientific basis of the 1992 Global Climate Treaty to be flawed and its goal to be unrealistic. The policies to implement the Treaty are, as of now, based solely on unproven scientific theories, imperfect computer models -- and the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from an increase in greenhouse gases, requiring immediate action. We do not agree. We believe that the dire predictions of a future warming have not been validated by the historic climate record, which appears to be dominated by natural fluctuations, showing both warming and cooling. These predictions are based on nothing more than theoretical models and cannot be relied on to construct far-reaching policies.
As the debate unfolds, it has become increasingly clear that –- contrary to the conventional wisdom -- there does not exist today a general scientific consensus about the importance of greenhouse warming from rising levels of carbon dioxide. In fact, most climate specialists now agree that actual observations from both weather satellites and balloon-borne radiosondes show no current warming whatsoever--in direct contradiction to computer model results.
Historically, climate has always been a factor in human affairs -– with warmer periods, such as the medieval "climate optimum," playing an important role in economic expansion and in the welfare of nations that depend primarily on agriculture. Colder periods have caused crop failures, and led to famines, disease, and other documented human misery. We must, therefore, remain sensitive to any and all human activities that could affect future climate.
However, based on all the evidence available to us, we cannot subscribe to the politically inspired world view that envisages climate catastrophes and calls for hasty actions. For this reason, we consider the drastic emission control policies deriving from the Kyoto conference -- lacking credible support from the underlying science -- to be ill-advised and premature.
-
Don't forget to quote your sources! Here - I'll do it for you - again
http://www.sepp.org/leipzig.html
-
As usual, you miss the obvious and the point entirely.
I can see why you are so thirsty now. :rofl
-
There was a point? :D
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Yes, I'm ignoring it - because there's nothing I can do about it. Even on earth, my personal contribution to global warming is only 0.000000007% of the world total.
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Since your personal contribution to global warming is only 0.000000007% of the world total, to be consistant you should ignore our global warming as well.
Originally posted by beet1e
No, because it's 25% of the world total, as compared with 2% for the UK.
We were discussing your personal contribution to global warming in the above exchange, then you suddenly changed to US vs UK.
It seems inconsistancy is your forte'.
>edit... I see... you were thinking 'our' meant the USA, while I was referring to humanity. I was including you in 'our'
-
Oh, OK - let's go back to my personal contribution to global warming. And let's not forget that forthcoming boat trip, which will consume about 90 litres of diesl fuel between six of us, in a week. That's 15 litres which can be ascribed directly to me!
-
Originally posted by beet1e
There was a point? :D
Exactly.
Thanks for your input. :rofl
-
Well... I'll need time to work out what it was - you can correct Davy Crockett's spelling mistakes while you're waiting!
-
Davy`s spelling is just fine. I didn`t have a bit of trouble reading and understanding it. Did you?
Recognize or recognise? I have no problem understanding either.
Take all the time you need. The obvious seems to be a puzzle for you.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Oh, OK - let's go back to my personal contribution to global warming. And let's not forget that forthcoming boat trip, which will consume about 90 litres of diesl fuel between six of us, in a week. That's 15 litres which can be ascribed directly to me!
6 men no doubt, eh? (http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/images/smilies/gay.gif) Got a VCR on the boat? Maybe you can play "Love Boat" re-runs. :)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
6 men no doubt, eh? (http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/images/smilies/gay.gif) Got a VCR on the boat? Maybe you can play "Love Boat" re-runs. :)
Brokeback Canoe. :rofl
-
No Rip - 4-2! But I'll be sure to take my knitting and crochet work. ;)
Oh and by the way - I was wrong in an earlier thread about my uncle's boat. It was a 26ft boat, and whereas I thought he used an ordinary car for towing it, he told me at the weekend that he towed it with a Land Rover - pfft! I didn't even know he had a Land Rover.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
No Rip - 4-2! But I'll be sure to take my knitting and crochet work. ;)
Oh and by the way - I was wrong in an earlier thread about my uncle's boat. It was a 26ft boat, and whereas I thought he used an ordinary car for towing it, he told me at the weekend that he towed it with a Land Rover - pfft! I didn't even know he had a Land Rover.
You're average 26 ft boat with a diesel here in the US runs anywhere from 8,000 to 10,000 lbs. If he's towing it with a Land Rover, then he's towing outside the safe limit of his vehicle.:confused: Next time you speak with him, ask him how much his boat weighs (Dry weight)
Incidently, that Land Rover is classified as a Gas Guzzler SUV in the USA, at 14 mpg city. :rofl
Hello Irony!:rofl
-
Many here miss the logics:
"I don`t see enough vegatation being planted "by hand" to make any noticeable difference.(Read that as machinery output) So......how do you suggest this gets done without creating more CO2
than it takes care of?"
It didn't even require human interference to tie down vast masses of CO2, deep into the earth. What is oil?
What is soil as well? Do you have to plant every year? Did anyone ever hear of forests? What are the effects of forests on CO2?
Do you know that a typical farm only needs to allocate some odd 10% of it's land to create all the energy needed for the production from the other 90%? Guess not.
And for the UK pumping out 2% of greenhouse gases while the USA has 25%, - WOW! Didn't know that. That leaves the US citizen dumping 2.5 times as much pro person than a Brit, - and the UK is after all an industrial country! Even infested with Land Rovers!
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Oh, OK - let's go back to my personal contribution to global warming. And let's not forget that forthcoming boat trip, which will consume about 90 litres of diesl fuel between six of us, in a week. That's 15 litres which can be ascribed directly to me!
You are the one who brought up your 0.000000007% contribution... while I happily commute on my bicycle.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Many here miss the logics:
One or two here make statements that hold no logic and when asked to explain how exactly their theories are supposed to work, go into the old smoke and mirrors routine. :D
-
Ripsnort - he hasn't had a boat for many years. He's an old guy now, and I'll have to find out which model of Land Rover it was. Clearly it wasn't one of the current models, and it was too early to have been the V8 model which I first saw in the 1980s.
As for irony, I never drove it myself - would have been too young at the time! :D
-
I can try to explain this to you better Jackal, but I doubt it will work, for you seem unable to comprehend the explanation already there.
We are dumping a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere, and that seems to cause the so called greenhouse effect.
The CO2 we are dumping is stored in the earth, much in the form of oil and also coal.
It was plantmass before it turned to oil and coal.
Soil also contains some plantmass. Carbon and Nitrogen hook up.
Plants tie up CO2, especially trees.
Some CO2 gets released as well due to canalization, and by chopping down rainforests to get to the rich soil in the bottom, or so it is believed, for a thick plantmass in i.e. moorland contains a lot of carbon (enough to use it as fuel at times) and by "airing" it, one gets the Nitrogen out, - free fertilizer as long as it lasts.
So what is mankind doing?
1. Pumping vast amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere
2. Reducing forests in order to benefit from the short term economics of both the lumber and the sich soil in the bottom, thereby reducing the amount of CO2 being tied up again. (A lot of coffee is grown that way)
3. Not fighting deserts enough, so they keep growing.
A response is:
1. Use less fuel.
2. Increase vegetated areas.
Or, if it gets too warm, start a nuke-war and get a nuclear winter, hehe
:D
-
Originally posted by AWMac
Yeah...what Skuzzy said!!!
It's NOT like this is gonna happen in "2 weeks"....
:D
Mac
Just grrreat, I can see it now. Whoo whoo Tour of Duty released! Uh oh
the Moon departs the solar system for tour of galaxy! :furious :furious :furious
-
i think yhe US govt and other countries are concerned about global warming. If you'll notice, occasionally the jets will leave some big fat, highly unusual contrails, almost like a smoke trail. Sometimes at much lower altitudes than contrails would ordinarily form. (remember contrails are just ice crystals forming off engine condensation). It seems to me that cloud seeding or some other chemical is being let into the air to convert the greenhouse gases into something a little less harmful.. but then agasin i could be:noid .
-
90 gallons of diesel needlessly used for.... tourism? What about your fact finding mission to the middle east... did you ride a bike?
You are going to give up all needless travel especially by jet now... right beet?
No way could my 12 Mpg big block ever use a tenth of the fuel you have used to sightsee and dine out.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
90 gallons of diesel needlessly used for.... tourism? What about your fact finding mission to the middle east... did you ride a bike?
You are going to give up all needless travel especially by jet now... right beet?
No way could my 12 Mpg big block ever use a tenth of the fuel you have used to sightsee and dine out.
lazs
Er, lazs, 90 liters is roughly 22 gallons.:confused:
-
Originally posted by Angus
I can try to explain this to you better Jackal, but I doubt it will work, for you seem unable to comprehend the explanation already there.
We are dumping a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere, and that seems to cause the so called greenhouse effect.
The CO2 we are dumping is stored in the earth, much in the form of oil and also coal.
It was plantmass before it turned to oil and coal.
Soil also contains some plantmass. Carbon and Nitrogen hook up.
Plants tie up CO2, especially trees.
Some CO2 gets released as well due to canalization, and by chopping down rainforests to get to the rich soil in the bottom, or so it is believed, for a thick plantmass in i.e. moorland contains a lot of carbon (enough to use it as fuel at times) and by "airing" it, one gets the Nitrogen out, - free fertilizer as long as it lasts.
So what is mankind doing?
1. Pumping vast amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere
2. Reducing forests in order to benefit from the short term economics of both the lumber and the sich soil in the bottom, thereby reducing the amount of CO2 being tied up again. (A lot of coffee is grown that way)
3. Not fighting deserts enough, so they keep growing.
A response is:
1. Use less fuel.
2. Increase vegetated areas.
Angus, I comprehend what you are attempting to put forth here, but the problem is I don`t think you do.
You seem to be starting at point C or D in your theories instead of the beginning, point A or the origination point. Such as your 10% of farm land to produce fo the other 90%. That`s just fine if you are looking at it from a farmers perspective for profit to expense ratios, etc. What it doesn`t pertain to is is total CO2 emissions as a total. No matter what fuel you use to do all the hypothetical planting of forests and vegatation, you can`t start at point C, D, E, F, G or whatever to get a picture of what CO2 emmissions and other pollutants are involved. Start with point A. Machinery has to be built. It doesn`t just appear at time of delivery. First you have the factories and plants. They have to come from some where. Assuming that they are in place, then vast amounts of material have to be shipped from all over the world in most cases. All of which use fuel and burn fuel in obtaining, manufacturing and shipping. The building and production of such equipment itself is a real culprit if you are looking from it from this angle. Tons of pollution is produced. At the point of completion, the products have to be shipped. More pollution, more CO2 emissions. Machinery doesn`t run on thin air, so fuel is used.more pollution, more CO2 emissions. That`s ONE stage.
Reclamations of desert land is awesome I have to admit. Aquaducts, etc. are amazing in the point of what can be done with desert land. The only problem here is, when viewing it from a CO2/pollutant standpoint is , there is no magic Aquaduct wand to put them magicaly in place. They have to be built by someone. This puts us back to production. shipping and usage of machinery and vehicles of all types. More pollutants. Once in place , they do no good unless utilized. More planting, tilling, cultivation, which equals to more machinery/vehicle usage , which in turn produces more pollutants.
More forests? Hey I`m all for you on this one. Someone has to plant the forests. Guess what that means? :) Forests or mass amounts of vegeatation , once in place, could not be left unattended and untouched to provide any benefit from the standpoint that you are looking at it from. Thinned occasionaly, cultivated and partial harvest has to be done to prevent what? Rottting vegetation not only produces beneficial fertilize , as you put it. What else does it produce? Back to more shipping, machinery and fuel usage.
Some of the things you are suggesting here I would like to see happen, but I don`t believe it would accomplish what you are trying to put forth. Will it happen is another question that can easily be answered. Absolutely not.
I will give you this much. You seem to be totaly convinced of the theory and also seem to be very sincere. The thing is what you are putting forth as a solution to a theoretical problem is equal to peeing on a wildfire , in a head wind after drinking gasoline. :rofl
From my view point, looking at what you have suggested so far, the nuclear winter seems to be the most plausible and the most possible. Holy Moly Margarette, run for the hills. We`re doomed! :)
Old homestead/farmer saying around here pretty well sums it up. "That`s like burning down the barn to get rid of the rats."
-
Per the 2006 Trailer Life towing guide. The largest load a 2006 landrover can tow is 7,716 lbs. The Freelander model with the 2.5L V-6 can tow a whopping 2,500 lbs. It's going to be tough to tow much of a sailboat with one of these.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
90 gallons of diesel needlessly used for.... tourism? What about your fact finding mission to the middle east... did you ride a bike?
You are going to give up all needless travel especially by jet now... right beet?
No way could my 12 Mpg big block ever use a tenth of the fuel you have used to sightsee and dine out.
lazs
No, 90 litres. And that boat trip will pass by some places of historical significance, such as Cropredy Bridge, where an important battle in the Civil War was fought, and my thirst for further knowledge might be quenched. :p
To get to Qatar, I used an Air... er, Airline. As for the proportion of time I spent at a restaurant, which seems to be attracting a disproportionate amount of your attention, I suppose I could have taken a suitcase full of tinned food with me, but the problem is that various countries around the world (including the US and Qatar) have restrictions governing the importation of foodstuffs, eg. fresh fruit and vegetables, plus I'd be carrying a lot more weight. To solve the problem, I chose instead to take up my friends' invitation to join them for dinner at the Doha Marriott on the second evening, where an excellent buffet meal was provided. The third evening we were in the desert following the outing to the dunes, and a barbecue was offered. The only other time we went to a restaurant was for an hour or so the following lunch time. What was I supposed to do during this trip - stop eating??? Well, as hitech might have put it, I apolijize for liking to eat. Owing to the impracticality of importing food for my consumption while there, a couple of restaurant visits would seem to have been the most obvious expedient. You might have dealt with the dilemma differently - or not gone at all.
The only way I could eliminate my need for food, electricity and fuel is one which I am sure would accord with a good many people on this board, and that would be to commit suicide. However, I have never even contemplated this and it's not going to happen. The Freelander model with the 2.5L V-6 can tow a whopping 2,500 lbs. It's going to be tough to tow much of a sailboat with one of these. -mav
That doesn't sound right. Even my Audi Quattro with a 2.0TDi engine is rated to haul 1800Kg. (=3960lb) on slopes up to 8%, or 1600Kg. (=3520lb) on slopes up to 12%. Uncle's boat was a canal cruiser by the way, not a sail boat. - just saying...
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Staga, I cannot relate to your question at all. What is the point you are trying to make? Quit tap dancing and spit it out.
Sorry I thought it was quite obvious.
Think of it (= warming climate) as a shotgun pointing to your head: would you like to know if it's loaded or not? I bet you would but in this case different people are giving different answers; Bob says it's empty gun and you shouldn't worry about it while Ted says it's loaded with slugs and the powder is dry.
Would you like to turn the barrels away from your nose? Sure; just like every sane person in the earth....
So why would anyone like to try his luck with the climate?
I don't know if the climate is warming up or not but I'd say better be safe than sorry... feel free to think different :)
-
shotguns do not cause global warming,burning fuel does not cause global warming, too many damm people on too small a planet cause global warming. HIV is natures way of trying to deal with over population.
-
OK that's it! All you Iranians, North Koreans, Saudi's and half of Finland, OFF OF MY PLANET!
That should help some.
-
If you were in the northern part of the US during the ice age, you would swear we were ruining the atmosphere and causing massive global warming.
If you could live long enough, you'd see this cycle many times.
Do a statistical means test and discover that the current trend can't be distinguished from the many previous temperature cycles the earth has undergone.
Go ahead, empty a can of hair spray and open your sunscreen :)
Nothing we do is going to stop the natural thermal cycles. Don't get crazy.
-
Jackal1:
I am well in on the farming issue. I have an acricultural education you see.
Oh, and I run a farm, as well as I've been working for others in my country and abroad. And that, my friend, is a valuable asset when it comes to detecting total rubbish about agriculture.
You don't accept my point and I don't accept yours. Mine being basically that there is global warming and there is something mankind CAN do about it, yours basically being that there isn't. Well, I'm telling you that you're wrong, and defending the same issue that the USA is now defending against Europe for instance.
And I think your logic is going in circles. Machinery for instance drastically increases the output of land, while not being necessary at all to sustain civilization. Shipping stuff all over the world is not always necessary. A "rotting" forest or vegetation does NOT require any energy. Aquaducts were built long before there was fuel propelled machinery, and apart from that, you don't have to build them every year. (What are the Egyptians doing now?)
It all boils down to one thing though, and that's where the comfy consumer gets a hicup:
There is a prize on decreasing CO2 emission. It's money. Products will become more expensive and it's going to hit everybody's purse.
Want me to explain why?
And TalonX:
"Nothing we do is going to stop the natural thermal cycles. Don't get crazy"
It's not a "Natural" Thermal cycle. There were many big natural cycles before, and will be, but this one isn't.
John:
"burning fuel does not cause global warming"
Dead wrong.
And a bone for you:
The CO2 emission from forest destruction in the Amazone area counts somewhere from 20-65% of the CO2 emission from the global fuel usage.
-
Global Warming is bullcaca. Well anyway, a volcano spews out more "pollution" then we do.
I was listening to that commie Air Soviet(America)radio today, and this chick said she dreaded the
day, a giant merchant ship full of goods would sink as that would cause the end of the world.
-
Volcanoes spew out ash, not greenhouse-effect related gases.
It causes cooling, not warming, and only temporarily (untill it settles)
A slight cooling in the European climate in ca 1785 - 1789 has been linked with a 3-year eruption in Iceland (1783-1786). That was the biggest volcanic eruption on the planet since civilization.
So, this post of yers is a "bullcaca"
-
If we quote Boroda the world can actually be saved by detonating a few dozen nukes in the deserts, enough to block some of the sunlight.
Afterall, radiation is not harmful and nobody has ever died from it. Especially russian radiation. :rofl
-
It may well be true that the earth's climate undergoes cyclic changes, but this in no way nullifies the evidence available that man made global warming is also taking place, and at a faily prodigious rate. Some people in this thread are using the natural cyclic changes to mask the effect of what we are doing to this planet ourselves. As Angus as pointed out, the arctic ice is melting - and melting at a faster rate than had been predicted.
Even though cyclic changes may exist, the amount of greenhouse gas being released into the earth's atmosphere is each year is, at 6 billion tonnes, infinitely higher in the last 250 years than at any other period in the earth's history.
Some people might find these figures to be unbelievable. Indeed, when I first posted on this topic some months ago, one board poster refuted the figures thus: So, at best its a guess from a bunch of left wing tree hugging man hating whale humping lesbians with an agenda.
and Given those figures are guesses by hippies based on energy use I think you're screwed in this thread.
However, I can confirm that the figures are from the Energy Information Administration - the official energy statistics from the US Government.
Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html
-
Good point!
This matter stands close to me, for I live in a country where the warming is very evident. Our Country is also rich of volcanoes (I can see a couple out my kitchen window), so that effect is well known to us.
Actually, today, we have an EVACUATION excercize, and I just nailed an orange sign with the text "HOUSE EVACUATED" on the front!
Our metreologists have been proving right, and so have our geologists.
We are now waiting for a Volcanic eruption, which is overdue.
Same is with earthquake activity, we get those every now and then, and our guys are getting better evrey year predicting them.
The last big one was in 2000, the guys predicted another one within a week, it was 4 days!
The declination of the ozon layer was predicted, debated, and then established as a fact. Now, measures are being taken.
Same goes with the man-made global warming. It was debated, then warming was established as a fact, and measures are being taken in many countries to reduce it, - just not enough.
But dangit, I won't be able to stop that volcano from popping :(
-
Originally posted by Angus
Jackal1:
I am well in on the farming issue. I have an acricultural education you see.
Oh, and I run a farm, as well as I've been working for others in my country and abroad. And that, my friend, is a valuable asset when it comes to detecting total rubbish about agriculture.
Great and so do I. I was born raised and worked on the farm for many, many years. I have also owned and ran a custom farming business on two different occasions.
Mine being basically that there is global warming and there is something mankind CAN do about it, yours basically being that there isn't.
What I have said here is global warming is a theory. There is just as many saying the global warming theory is a load of horse crap.(You being a farmer will understand that. :)) That`s theory as well.
If global warming exists and CO2 and pollutant emmisions is proven to be the cause , then I totaly agree there is something mankind can do to reduce it. You wouldn`t like the ideas and neither would anyone else. What I`m telling you is , it is a fairy tale that will never happen. Mankind will not willing give up the comforts.
I am also telling you that in most cases when mankind has came up with solutions to theoretical problems, we have smooched the pooch on the majority of them and made things worse than originaly were in the geginning. That clear enough for you?
Machinery for instance drastically increases the output of land, while not being necessary at all to sustain civilization. S
Yes it drasticaly increases output......at a very high cost. No, it`s not necessary to sustain a civilization, just the one we are accustom to . :)
The point is , to attain the amount of vegatation/forest on a scale you are speaking of, to the point of having any impact whatsoever, production of machinery would have to be increased 10 fold and over at least. Then there is the question of where are we going to do all this MASS planting.
BTW , where are you putting your 20 or 30,000 acre forest?
Also, what are you doing personaly ?
Aquaducts were built long before there was fuel propelled machinery, and apart from that, you don't have to build them every year.
True that. The initial projects would increase enough more percentage of CO2 over the current rate of output to set you back a couple hundred years because we are talking masive in order to have any significant bearing on anything.
(What are the Egyptians doing now?)
When you round up a few hundred thousand ancient Eygptians that are willing to die like flys to do such mass manual labor, get back to me. We will put them right on it. :)
A "rotting" forest or vegetation does NOT require any energy./QUOTE]
BS. Without energy , the forest will not rot. The forest would not exist to begin with. Every living organism or organisms require energy to even exist.
I think you missed the point here again. What a rotting forest produces, once again, is not only beneficial fertilizer, but also produces what? CO2.
It all boils down to one thing though, and that's where the comfy consumer gets a hicup:
Yep, that`s what I am saying. Not only that, but in order to have any significant input whatsoever, it would hit hard too.
All the "what ifs" and fairy tale scenarios look goood on paper while we are sipping coffee or refrigerated drinks, but that certainly doesn`t mean it will actualy happen.
We could eliminate lots of todays current problems if we were willing to go back to more simple ways. Eliminate autos all together. Ride horses. Eliminate 90% of factories and industrilization. (About 85% of that only produces useless junk to begin with) Raise our own food organicaly, etc.
Of course we would have to get a few million volunteers to commit suicide in order for this to work. All of which would be fine with me as long as I`m not on the list. :)
We would also have to make sure this was a worldwide project in order for it to work. I don`t speak Russian for example. :)
Fairy tales and "what ifs."
As it stands now, world leaders cannot agree on the size and shape of a meeting table. I don`t see any change in this in the future.They are certainly not going to EVER be able to agree with anything on such a grand scale as what it would take to reduce CO2 emissions to any degree that it would have an even microscopic impact Fairy tales...nice on paper, but just that.
-
Saying that we need to start a grassroots effort to start action within 10 years is hardly panic. Panic would likely be what the younger generation feels in about 25 years if we do nothing for the next 10 years. I would like us to avoid that panic by doing more now, since it's always cheaper now than later.
--------------
Insert tacky reminder and lesson about panic and rising water: The scientists and engineers said the levees around New Orleans needed to be rebuilt because of the risks of a large hurricane. The others said, "Ohh Chicken Littles - the sky isn't falling! Don't worry about it, don't panic. It's highly unlikely a major hurricane will hit. We can use the money for other things. We're all going to die anyway!"
The cost of rebuilding, lost earnings, health and social costs, grants, insurance, etc. will dwarf the amount it would have cost to rebuild the levees years ago. And the levees still need to be rebuilt...
The scientists were right. The living have to pay the price for not "dying anyway."
--------------
I started on this journey of reading about 6 months ago (and I need a new pair of reading glasses from it) because I was looking to compare some of the methodology to economic models of risk, and particularly the measure of risk, since the parameters are less than galactic, but wider than economics. Cyclical and technical, or push factors, are present in both, and both follow the general principle that history is not a precurser to the future since the conditions are never the same.
And, it's a field undiluted by politics, agendas and special interests, like economics... ;)
I would very much like to read more peer-reviewed, recently-published papers by credentialed scientists that counter the theory that our CO2 emissions and greenhouse gases will not contribute significantly to the increase in global mean suface temperature with data and a methodology.
The problem is that I can't find them. As a matter of fact, they have melted away to a trickle.
So how do we define concensus? There are a few thousand peer-reviewed papers published in the last few years saying 'yes,' and about a dozen published in the same time saying 'no.' The 'no' guys have no data or experiments, so they are relegated to adding anomolies to projections to derive a 'no' conclusion.
Fred Singer is the 'no' guy most quoted, but he isn't writing peer-reviewed papers. Half of the organizations he's part of are funded directly by ExxonMobile, and the others are spinoffs supported by the same money. Most of the old scientist skeptics retired, died, stop writing about it or changed their minds. The few new guys are looking to cash in on ExxonMobile's largess to anyone willing to say 'no' publically. Most of the takers are retired and don't need to look colleagues in the eye anymore on a daily basis, and they are not writing peer-reviewed papers with data to support their position.
The papers written 15 years ago that are still being trotted out were written before the new modeling and before the biggest push factor - the massive impact China is having on driving up emissions and overall resources consumption.
It's interesting to note that the same non-scientists who argued that there was no concensus, hence no scientific validity, changed their argument when the concensus became overwhelming. It changed to the argument that concensus has no place in science, hence there was no scientific validity.
There is no less concensus among credentialed scientists than there is concensus that smoking is deleterious to your health.
It's reminiscent of the argument used by the tobacco industry - no concensus of medical evidence. The industry did the same thing the oil industry is doing now:
(http://tech-rep.org/images/kent.jpg)
Create the illusion that there is no concensus with false 'scientists' supporting their position for cash. By the way, that filter was made from asbestos and decimated the workers that made the filter with asbestosis.
The only argument remaining is: we don't want to change our lifestyle.
-----------
In a nutshell, we're getting compound interest (temperature increase) from our CO2 emissions, not simple interest that we projected 18 and 10 years ago.
-----------
The global economy has gone through a remarkably extended period of growth and good fortune and we should be investing now toward changing our energy infrastucture, not waiting until the wolf is at the door 25 years from now. A policy centered on burning through all the fossil fuel we can get our hands on until it runs out is foolhardy. Foolhardy for the environment and for global economic stability.
Now is the time to start rebuilding the nuclear industry. The environmental groups who oppose it are foolhardy also. If we don't start a massive program this decade, we may not have the resources to do it later. Industry and much transportation must move to non-fossil fuel electricity. The western economies are going to be under great stress 4-5 years from now when baby-boomer retirements begin to throttle down consumer spending.
Creating a race to the finish for fossil fuel is a race that no one wins. Investing in a new industry (it will be like a new industry for many countries, US included) creates jobs and growth. In 25 years, China alone could have a demand for oil that exceeds the total world supply. The world will not be able to pressure or hold China and India responsible in the future, if the rest of the world has not already started changing the infrastructure. The "Dr. Strangelove" method is not an elegant solution.
It's kind of a classic fable, isn't it? Spreading western selfish consumption with no regard for the next generation throughout the world as a 'way of life' will hasten the degradation of the western way of life for the young generation of westerners.
Reducing CO2 by changing our infrastructure has no negative risks to the health of any species (including us), environment or ecosystem. The argument that it will hurt the economy should be more honestly stated. It's like a disease or infection - the longer you wait to treat it, the greater the risk it will do more damage to you.
Anosognosia is not a treatment.
-
As I am sure some people on this BBS are aware, I used to be a very vocal proponent of man-made global warming.
Then I started seeing data like this...
(http://solar-center.stanford.edu/images/solactivity.jpg)
Although I still believe we could help allievate the problem, I'm not sure that it's worth the it until we know what component of global warming is man-made and how much is increase solar output.
-
this is really funny... so if we don't believe chicken little even tho he has no evidence and can't tell us a thing...
We are "having a shotgun pointed at our head" and wondering if it is loaded or not? LOL... or even more amusing... we are smokers and believing the darth vader of business... the tobaco co. (can we even mention them in here?)
No evidence... all doom and gloom... no aknowledgeing all the new tech that is waiting to be used...
Worse.... those screaming the loadest.... are only worried about the other guys habits.... when it comes to travel.... well so what if tourism is probly way bigger a polluter.... I mean... it is worth it if they see "things of historical significance" LOL the hypocracy of these limmosine liberals...
We have no idea if we are contributing or not or even how much... we do know that if we lived like quakers.... the amount of greenhouse gasses we prevented would all be undone by one good volcano errupting...
chicken littles...you all look like fools to me and far from me feeling that global warming has a shotgun to my head...
I feel it is you and your expansion of government by junk science (WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING NOW!!!!!) That is the biggest threat we have ever faced.
I can forsee no problem that will not either fix itself or that the free market will not fix other than natural disasters like comets, or volcanos or poles swapping ends or aliens firing a planet killer at us...
You guys are silly and naive and playing right into the hands of nanny who will damn sure figure out a way to make you pay for the guilt you are heaping upon yourself.
lazs
-
Well Lazs, I don`t know man.
I`m going to put up a website asking for ancient Eygptians willing to volunteer for slave labor. The death to survial ratio will sort of have to be whitwashed, but what the H. I`ll get back with the outcome. :)
-
I got no problem with the whole thing in any event... if a couple billion people starve to death then that is a solution in itself...
surely the ones left will be to busy to bother me with their drivel.
have you noticed how.... ah... Gleeful the doom and gloomers seem to be? They are so pleased to be amung the anointed few who have had their eyes opened and are chomping at the bit to be able to tell everyone what to do and met out the punishment...
let the inquisition begin!
lazs
-
Here... I know you don't like to read lazs, but I just saw this go online after I posted:
Time cover story:
"Environmentalists and lawmakers spent years shouting at one another about whether the grim forecasts were true, but in the past five years or so, the serious debate has quietly ended. Global warming, even most skeptics have concluded, is the real deal, and human activity has been causing it. If there was any consolation, it was that the glacial pace of nature would give us decades or even centuries to sort out the problem.
But glaciers, it turns out, can move with surprising speed, and so can nature. What few people reckoned on was that global climate systems are booby-trapped with tipping points and feedback loops, thresholds past which the slow creep of environmental decay gives way to sudden and self-perpetuating collapse. Pump enough CO2 into the sky, and that last part per million of greenhouse gas behaves like the 212th degree Fahrenheit that turns a pot of hot water into a plume of billowing steam. Melt enough Greenland ice, and you reach the point at which you're not simply dripping meltwater into the sea but dumping whole glaciers. By one recent measure, several Greenland ice sheets have doubled their rate of slide, and just last week the journal Science published a study suggesting that by the end of the century, the world could be locked in to an eventual rise in sea levels of as much as 20 ft. Nature, it seems, has finally got a bellyful of us."
"Things are happening a lot faster than anyone predicted," says Bill Chameides, chief scientist for the advocacy group Environmental Defense and a former professor of atmospheric chemistry. "The last 12 months have been alarming." Adds Ruth Curry of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts: "The ripple through the scientific community is palpable."
And it's not just scientists who are taking notice. Even as nature crosses its tipping points, the public seems to have reached its own. For years, popular skepticism about climatological science stood in the way of addressing the problem, but the naysayers—many of whom were on the payroll of energy companies—have become an increasingly marginalized breed."
-
:rofl
Well....................if it`s in Time, I concede as I`m sure everyone else will.
No agenda there. :D
-
rolex... when I was growing up.... TIME MAGAZINE had an article... in fact, the cover story... about the coming inevitable doomsday ice age that I believe they said would hit before the year 2000...
Now, either TIME MAGAZINE is not worth me getting all upset about when it comes to something as incomprehensible as the earth and weather cycles and global warming/cooling or lack thereof or.... We are indeed fortunate that we were able to consume so much and cause enough global warming to reverse the trend.
So.. rather than read all the doom and gloom unproveable drivel that you seem to revel in (for whatever reason).....
What would you suggest we all do? would you also admit that if we managed to stop all greenhouse gases from man that.... a couple of decent sized volcanos would undo all the great work?
Lets see some real solutions from you.... I know what the scientists think we should do.... they think we should put them on TV and give them bottomless grants to "study" the "problem".
What do you think we should do?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
rolex... when I was growing up.... TIME MAGAZINE had an article... in fact, the cover story... about the coming inevitable doomsday ice age that I believe they said would hit before the year 2000...
Times had a more recent article in 1994, Ice Age Coming was the "flavor of the week" for doomsday scenarios 12 years ago:
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/iceage.htm
-
I tell you what I think is happening...
The commie socialist liberals finaly figured out that no one is gonna buy their line and put the yolk on without a fight... They are now trying to build goverment by scaring the most gullible among us with junk science... "better let us run your life or you are DOOMED!!!!"
Scratch an environmentalist and you will find a socilaist commie liberal wanting more control over your life.
lazs
-
Look lazs, you don't read scientific papers. I thought maybe you'd read a non-scientific magazine, but I'd forgotten that you said you don't read.
I'll admit it was a mistake to mention any magazine, since the 'Ice Age' theory was published in non peer-reviewed 'popular' press, but was highly qualified in peer-reviewed papers with the caveat that not enough data was available then and the mechanisms not understood enough. They centered on defining the data required and the techniques to understand CFCs and CO2 contribution.
The peer-reviewed scientists didn't predict an ice age. The magazines did.
"So.. rather than read all the doom and gloom unproveable drivel that you seem to revel in (for whatever reason).....
If this is your starting point, there is no reason in continuing this.
-
Excellent posts, Rolex - the best I've seen on this board on the topic of global warming, and its consequences. As you can see from what followed, a large proportion of the problem is a lack of public awareness and a lack of understanding of the problem. We have fatuous questions from naysayers like this -
Originally posted by Jackal1
Also, what are you doing personaly ?
Anyone who asks that clearly has no idea of the scale of the problem we face and the sheer volume of man-produced greenhouse gas being released into the atmosphere on a daily basis. The annual total of CO2 released is, I repeat, six billion tonnes - that's about 190 tonnes per second - and yet the ostriches ask "what are you doing personally". :rolleyes:
The magnitude of the problem is such that no way in hell will token gestures - like not taking a flight, or cancelling a boat trip to save 90 litres of diesel fuel - make a ha'peth of difference. It's a GLOBAL problem, and cannot be solved by well intentioned do-gooders planting a few trees, holding discussion groups in the local community, building a few orphanages, or by turning down the thermostat by a degree or two - all of which have been suggested on this board in the past few months as "solutions".
Whole technologies are going to have to change world wide, and new ones are going to have to be developed and deployed. Paradoxically, the Greens are opposed to nuclear power, but with zero emissions into the atmosphere, it might be our salvation or, more to the point, the salvation of people who might be alive 20/50/100 years from now who can't swim.
Even though the USA emits 25% of the world total of CO2, China and India are not far behind, given their burgeoning economies. If growth in China continues at its current rate, we could see a situation - not too far into the future - in which China's oil demand alone exceeds the world supply.
As for the link between greenhouse gas output and glacial meltdown being "unproven", this sounds more like an argument from the Flat Earth Society every time I read it.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
We have fatuous questions from naysayers like this - Anyone who asks that clearly has no idea of the scale of the problem we face and the sheer volume of man-produced greenhouse gas being released into the atmosphere on a daily basis.
Having a problem with the top of the page are you?
They are certainly not going to EVER be able to agree with anything on such a grand scale as what it would take to reduce CO2 emissions to any degree that it would have an even microscopic impact
The point is , to attain the amount of vegatation/forest on a scale you are speaking of, to the point of having any impact whatsoever, production of machinery would have to be increased 10 fold and over at least. Then there is the question of where are we going to do all this MASS planting.
The initial projects would increase enough more percentage of CO2 over the current rate of output to set you back a couple hundred years because we are talking masive in order to have any significant bearing on anything.
If anyone doesn`t comprehend the scale, then it would be you.
The point of the question of what you are doing personaly if you beleive in this to the degree that it is being put forth is this: If you are not personaly taking part in something that you supposedly beleive in 100%, then how in hell are you going to convince entire nations to your beleifs and have them agree on it? The answer? Ain`t gonna happen Marie.
You, yourself, don`t wish to give up your travleing in your mighty quest for knowledge. :rofl
If you are not willing to sacrifice, what makes you think anyone else would for your benefit? It`s theory. One of many. True/false? Who friggen knows.
I can tell you one thing for certain on the outcome of the whole BS theory. If anything is attempted to be done at all. then it will be all of us who get fleeced. Also , more than likely, more damge will be done that gain accomplished. Grand scale beyond anyone`s comprehension.
Fairy tales.
-
rolex... who said I don't read... I probly read a book or two a week. I don't scour the world to find doom and gloom.
Don't you think that if the majority of the scientists belived that we were DOOMED if we didn't DO SOMETHING in the next ten years....
That even a dummy like me would have run into something irrefutable on it by now?
and... TIME MAGAZINE didn't claim to do the "ice age" story.... they had lots of leading scientists to quote at the time..
I remember carl frigging nut job sagan saying at the first gulf war.... right ther on TV... that if the sadman lit even half the oil fields on fire in kuwait that.... GASP we would all suffer a nuclear winter from the blaket that would cover the earth!!!!
My point being.... In my short life span I have heard enough doom and gloom scenarios to have wasted hundreds of hours of me researching em for..... for nothing.
I am saying that when we get more proof... and everyone get's on board I will give it more of a look.... not that it matters... not a damn thing I (or you) can do about it in any case which brings us right back to the big unanswered question in all this....
What do you think we should do about it?
Let's hear it... I know you have some answers....Tell us what little things we have to do "just in case" the handfull of scientists you are listening to are correct in every thing they are sayin.... not just in the whole global warming thing but the "why" and "how" part.
lazs
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Paradoxically, the Greens are opposed to nuclear power, but with zero emissions into the atmosphere, it might be our salvation or, more to the point, the salvation of people who might be alive 20/50/100 years from now who can't swim.
Ironic and hilarious all in one line. Good work.
Yes, when professing to be looking out for those in the future and cleaning up the planet, nuclear power is the way to go. I`m sure nuclear waste will never cause a problem.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
The point of the question of what you are doing personaly if you beleive in this to the degree that it is being put forth is this: If you are not personaly taking part in something that you supposedly beleive in 100%, then how in hell are you going to convince entire nations to your beleifs and have them agree on it? The answer? Ain`t gonna happen Marie.
Marie? Last time I was Hoss. Prefer Hoss! To answer your rather fatuous question, I'm not going to do anything to convince "entire nations". I am not a politician. Besides, what good could a one man crusade do when, as Rolex has suggested, there is a whole wealth of scientific data out there which is not being read by the public at large? There are thousands of pages on the web about this - and not from "left wing/liberal hippies" but from sources like the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in TN and the US Department of Energy. If their material isn't enough to convince you, nothing I can say will change anything.
Jack, you're still treating this like some kiddie crusade, or Moms Against Global Warming. It's a much bigger issue than you possibly realise. The answer doesn't lie with individuals making personal sacrifices. The changes needed go far beyond one person staying at home instead of going on a 90 litre of diesel boat trip.
There is one thing that one particular individual could do which might begin to address the problem - that is for W to concede that man-made carbon emissions are making an alarming contribution to the problem. There are now signs that this is happening - see my BBC link further up.^ Maybe now, the US will get with the programme along with the 157 countries who are already on it, instead of blindly proclaiming that a reduction in energy consumption is "not in America's interests", or, more to the point - a reduction in oil consumption in the short term is not in the interests of the oil business.
-
The best land and best prospects for health I ever saw - Davy Crockett
Oh - seems like he got that wrong, at least for himself...
-
Oh my gawd..... only chicken little knows the truth!!
beet... you will admit that if the U.S. dropped it's emissions to zero....
That one good volcano going off would put more emissions into the atmosphere than decades of living in caves without fire would have saved?
lazs
-
Earth heats up before it cools down. The fertile crescent use to be green, now it's a desert. The US use to be covered in glaciers, now it's full of illegals.
This is probably the upswing of a global climate change. They've happened in the past.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
That one good volcano going off would put more emissions into the atmosphere than decades of living in caves without fire would have saved?
lazs
lazs, stop pretending you have any sort of clue you know what you are talking about.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Oh - seems like he got that wrong, at least for himself...
Unlike yourself, Davy seems to have given very little selfish though to himself.
You keep expounding on my Crockett sig. Does it bother you in someway? You have something against Mr. Crockett............I mean other than he was part of the Evil U.S. Empire?
Marie? Last time I was Hoss. Prefer Hoss! To answer your rather fatuous question, I'm not going to do anything to convince "entire nations". I am not a politician. Besides, what good could a one man crusade do when, as Rolex has suggested, there is a whole wealth of scientific data out there which is not being read by the public at large?
We will stick with Marie then. :)
I know you are not going to do anything Beet. Other than take a bunch of gullibles to the cleaners, neither is anyone else. If one person can`t convince hisself to get into the mix, once again, how do you propose the magic formula for getting the world to agree on it. Fairy Tale. Ain`t gonna happen.
The world consists of individuals, such as your "one person" comment.
I disagree on the general public not reading the "wealth of scientific data" available. Most read it and discard it as another doomsday theory, which btw it is, or read it and don`t give a rat`s patunia one way or the other. Most people are like you. "Let someone else make any sacrafices because I don`t want to be bothered" kind of thing that you gladly admit to.
Jack, you're still treating this like some kiddie crusade, or Moms Against Global Warming.
I`m not treating it like anything slick...err Marie, other than being another doomsaday theory of which I have seen many. At this point nobody is treating it period. A big load of hogwash and talk. That`s about as far as it will ever get.
he changes needed go far beyond one person staying at home instead of going on a 90 litre of diesel boat trip.
And there it is again. The world consists of "one persons" in the plural. rarely do they agree on anything on a small scale, not to mention something as grand as this. The size and shape of meeting tables cannot even be agreed upon ,when it comes to nations leaders, and you are trying to tell me that all of a sudden every leader in the world is going to agree on something? On a friggen far fetched theory at best? I don`t think so Homie...er Marie. :)
You or anyone else is not going to stop the forces of nature, no matter how much whining is loaded onto the cart.
For heavens sake man, we are threatening to nuke each other at every turn. Now you are saying all of a sudden everyone is going to jump on the Peace Train and Save Mother Earth bandwagon . Pure fictional, fairy tale thinking. Too much Sagan for you my man.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
So whats this mucky muck I've been hearing about the poles reversing? In was in the news some time ago, now its not. Anyone?
Poles are reversing? Darn, I'm cancelling my trip to Warsaw!
-
The poles are moving, yes, but the majority of the crowd here will probably say it's not true, and as well, not recognize that it is the magnetic pole that it's being referred to, not the axis of the globe.
Well what to expect.
So Jackal and Lazs (can I call you Charlotte and Susan?), while you are figuring out whether the globe is warming it actually is, and it is an established fact. If you'd live nearer to glaciers you'd actually not need any particular data, - you can see it with the naked eye.
It still can be debated whether this is a normal swing in global temperature, but it goes along just fine with predictions of CO2 emission the first of those being made in the 19th century.
This (repeating myself) goes so paralell to the whole deal about the ozon layer, where the scientists were right and many a government...wrong.
But the global warming is a bigger issue. What's creepy about it is that if it gets going, it's hard to tell where it stops. A certain acceleration in warming, and/or a certain level of greenhoue effect can result in a vicious circle, - the warming will increase warming. Once there, - better move your address to the southern pole, if that's enough. A little cooler than Venus though.....
-
I wonder who is reponsible for all the other global warming cycles the earth has gone through.
-
Answer:
Earth itself. Herself....whatever.
And for this one? Us.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Answer:
Earth itself. Herself....whatever.
And for this one? Us.
Its very arrogant to think humans alone are causing global warming.
-
It's not arrogant, though, to believe we are accelerating it.
-
Originally posted by NattyIced
It's not arrogant, though, to believe we are accelerating it.
Trees are accelerating it too. :huh
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4604332.stm
The amount of the gas produced increased when the air was warmer, and when there was more sunlight. The paper estimates that this unexplained phenomenon could account for 10-30% of the world's methane emissions. "We now have the spectre that new forests might increase greenhouse warming through methane emissions rather than decrease it by sequestering carbon dioxide."
-
Then our destroying the rain forest is win/win. Right?
-
Henh. Sitting 4 miles in from a barrier island on the atlantic seaboard just 9 feet above sea level... with 3.5 million other idiots within 50 miles of me in either direction.
I think I'll wait around here with my thumb up my bellybutton and see if two class 5 hurricanes in 12 months on this planet is a coincidence.
-
OK. Good 'ol mom earth was responsible for the last global warming but somehow we are responsible for this one. Exactly how do you figure we took responsibility for a cycle that the earth has gone through numerous times without man's help?
If we are reponsible for the rapidity of the warming cycle, how long did the earth take on the last 2 it was responsible for? Secondly who took the measurements and where did they take them? Were they in farenhiet or celcius? Which calandar did they use? Did the researchers during the last 2 cycles post their data?
-
You talking to me Maverick?
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Henh. Sitting 4 miles in from a barrier island on the atlantic seaboard just 9 feet above sea level... with 3.5 million other idiots within 50 miles of me in either direction.
I think I'll wait around here with my thumb up my bellybutton and see if two class 5 hurricanes in 12 months on this planet is a coincidence.
There were 21 tropical cyclones in the North Atlantic in 2003, and 21 in 1933.
It's not a coincidence at all but no statistical correlation has been made between cyclone frequency and strength and the global warming phenomenon. A correlation does seem to exist with a hurricane cycle and a solar cycle.
-
Yer average cat 2-3 is fairly routine.. I've been through one here and one in Florida.. beasties to be sure but not the threat a Cat 5 is. And, seems that big bastard hurricanes are in style for Mother Nature lately.
Henh.
Gonna be an interesting atlantic storm season.
-
Angus - Charlotte and Susan! I like that. :D
Charlotte is never going to accept the data you have advanced with regard to melting glaciers, because there are no glaciers in Texas. And Susan doesn't care if the glaciers are melting - as long as unleaded costs less than $3/gallon.
As you have pointed out, the warming, and resultant glacier meltdown is an established fact. It's convenient for the naysayers to blame ALL of this on Mother Nature, but the meltdown is happening even faster than predicted - at a faster rate than ever before? Hmmm, I wonder if those six billion tonnes of CO2 we release annually have anything to do with it.
_____________________________ _______
There's none so blind as those who look, and choose not to see.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Its very arrogant to think humans alone are causing global warming.
Aren't humans alone able to wipe out all life from this planet by detonating all the nukes that they have produced? Or are nukes waaaaaay overrated?
-
Originally posted by Maverick
If we are reponsible for the rapidity of the warming cycle, how long did the earth take on the last 2 it was responsible for? Secondly who took the measurements and where did they take them? Were they in farenhiet or celcius? Which calandar did they use? Did the researchers during the last 2 cycles post their data?
Icecore sampling from the icecaps and glaciers. How do we know dinosaurs existed, there weren't any researchers alive back then as well.
-
Originally posted by Angus
So Jackal and Lazs (can I call you Charlotte and Susan?), while you are figuring out whether the globe is warming it actually is, and it is an established fact. If you'd live nearer to glaciers you'd actually not need any particular data, - you can see it with the naked eye.
Sure Agnus, why not. :aok
If I lived where you do, what I would see would be the normal shifting and cycling of weather patterns.
You can probably get ready for another doomsday thread in the near future. Discovery will be airing a program in a few days dealing with the proposed coming Ice Age. :rofl
-
Originally posted by beet1e
but the meltdown is happening even faster than predicted
So.....Hmmmmmmmm............. ...in other words, you are saying, man is not too sharp when it comes to PREDICTING what is going to take place on earth.
Priceless. Thank you.
-
sooo.... how much of all this warming is caused by man.... what it the percent? certainly all these esteemed scientists know that by now?
and... not one of the chicken littles has told me what they think we should do about it...
Soo... how much is man made and what should we do about it?
I also like that beet says that there is no need for him to do anything on a personal level since the problem is to big for his wasteful travel to have much effect on (% please?) I like that... I shall adopt that philosophy myself... no need for me to change anthing since I am a small part.... I am sure every person in the Unites States could get behind that solution of beetles..
so.... other than "do nothing" like beetle... is there anything else? Rolex? agnus?
lazs
-
and thrawn... you miss my point... if the earth is so fragile that we can destroy it by burning it's products then what difference does it make if we do that or a volcano kills the place or a comet or... oil fires in kuwait? extinct is extinct right?
lazs
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Angus - Charlotte and Susan! I like that. :D
Charlotte is never going to accept the data you have advanced with regard to melting glaciers, because there are no glaciers in Texas. And Susan doesn't care if the glaciers are melting - as long as unleaded costs less than $3/gallon.
As you have pointed out, the warming, and resultant glacier meltdown is an established fact. It's convenient for the naysayers to blame ALL of this on Mother Nature, but the meltdown is happening even faster than predicted - at a faster rate than ever before? Hmmm, I wonder if those six billion tonnes of CO2 we release annually have anything to do with it.
_____________________________ _______
There's none so blind as those who look, and choose not to see.
Eighty-five percent (85%) of Americans say global warming is probably happening, according to a new TIME magazine/ABC News/Stanford University poll, out Sunday, March 26th. A vast majority of respondents (88%) think global warming threatens future generations. More than half (60%) say it threatens them a great deal. About four-in-ten (38%) feel that global warming is already a serious problem, 47% feel that it will be in the future. TIME's special 26-page cover story, 'Be Worried. Be Very Worried,' hits newsstands Monday, March 27th.
Half of Americans (52%) say weather patterns in the county where they live have grown more unstable in the last three years and half (50%) feel that average temperatures have risen in their county. A majority (70%) thinks weather patterns globally have become more unstable in the last three years and more than half (56%) feel average temperatures around the world have risen.
Almost half (49%) say the issue of global warming is 'extremely' or 'very important' to them personally, up from 31% in 1998. When asked about the causes of rise in the world's temperatures, about three-in-ten (31%) feel it is caused by the things people do, almost one fifth (19%) feel it is caused mostly by natural causes; almost half (49%) feel it is a combination of the two. Almost seven-in-ten (68%) Americans think the government should do more to address global warming, according to the poll. More than six-in-ten respondents (64%) think scientists disagree with one another about global warming.
Two-thirds of Americans (66%) say President George W. Bush's policies did little or nothing to help the environment in the past year. More than half (54%) feel American businesses did little or nothing to help. Three-quarters want to see Bush and others-Congress, American businesses and the American public-take action to help the environment in the year ahead. However, about one-third (35%) of Americans say that in the past year they have personally given a lot of thought to the impact they were having on the environment.
Six-in-ten Americans (62%) think much can be done to curb global warming and 52% favor government mandates. Six-in-ten (61%) say they would support a government mandate on lowering power plant emissions, and 87% support tax breaks to develop water, wind and solar power. Eighty-one percent oppose higher taxes on electricity, 68% oppose higher gasoline taxes and 56% oppose giving companies tax breaks to build nuclear power plants.
The partisan gap on global warming seems to be shifting, according to the poll. In 1998, 31% of Republicans and Independents alike were sure that global warming was happening; it was not a distant 39% among Democrats. Today, 46% of Democrats and 45% of Independents are certain, and 26% of Republicans feel that way, according to the TIME/ABC News/Stanford University poll.
-
When the supervolcano in Yellowstone erupts it will probably make this sort of a non-issue.
Anyone have a few thousand acres they are willing to donate to the mass growing of cork? Asbestos cork......................... ....:D
-
well.... it seems that Americans are not what we are portrayed...
We even feel that the government should give us back some of our money to use to work on new solar and other energy sources... can't ask for more than that can you?
I am still waiting tho for the doom and gloomers to tell me what they think should be done.... if they were king.... what would they demand we do right now?
come on now... you can't have done all this research without knowing what you want us all to do and how quickly we need to do it? You of course will tell us what effect each of these things you ask has on the impending global warming and what percentage it will reduce right?
lazs
-
Realistically there isn't anything that can be done. Talking realistically here.
Stop driving gas cars? Stop flying all planes? Stop all trains? Stop all non-nuclear ships? Close down all gas and coal power plants?
I don't think most will sacrifice everything to possibly slow down the impending global climate change.
-
well... that is pretty discourageing natty...
I am sure that beet and rolex have some solutions tho (that don't involve any personal sacrafice of course).
So let's hear it.... what can we do to stop the sky from falling (or roasting and drowning us)?
I was gonna put four two barrels on the Healey next week so I kinda need to know now.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I was gonna put four two barrels on the Healey next week so I kinda need to know now.
lazs
:D Do tell old chap.
Now there is a man of action. I salute you in your efforts to burn up as much of this pesky oil byproduct as fast as possible. The sooner we can get this done, the sooner we will be through with all of these pollutants.
I can`t help but notice that so far in this thread while we have a frenzy of hand wringing and teeth gnashing we seem to be missing sloutions. I mean by that, actual, feasible solutions. A cure , if you will.
Also quite noticeable is the unwillingness for personal sacrafice.
On the same note, I have noticed that when a direction question is proposed to the DDS ( Doomsday Sqaud), those questions are forfeited and passed over.
I have yet to get an answer to how the point is going to be reached to get all world leaders to agree on something while threatening to nuke each other in the process.
I also have not had it expalined to me where the magic wand is going to come from so that we will be able to bypass points A, B ,C, etc. and jump right to points D, E, F to avoid setting us back a few hundred years and doing more damge than good.
My non-quenchable thirst for knowledge demands answers to these and other questions.
Inquiring minds want to know. (Which btw, is where this dog and pony show belongs..The Enquirer)
:rofl
-
Natty iced, Nope not to you specifically but yes generally if you know what I mean.
Thrawn can the ice cores tell us how much snow fell for any given day, week, month, if there was a break in snow fall and what the weather was like at the equator?
While I am prepared to accept limited data from the ice core I won't acept it tells the entire story including timeline, temperatures below freezing and how fast the entire cycle went. You would have to swallow some pretty large assumptions in snow fall rates for a specific year to really guage the length of time the "ice age" lasted or how long it took the earth to warm up. How much snow fall is there in an ice age in a specific spot of the earth and is that spot representative ffor the rest of the geographic area?
-
Given what we do know, that the Earth has it's own climate shifts and cycles, we can safely assume it maintains it's own balance. In that, when the Earth warms up and stuff starts to melt, and the ocean currents change which change wind patterns and generally shake the Earth up. At some point there is an exchange with heat for cold, and I'm guessing we may just find out how in the next several decades.
Now, it keeps itself in balance in that it hasn't completely killed itself and become a dead planet. It reaches a climax of heat, and then it goes the opposite direction and freezes up much of itself. We know this, it's happened in the past and we have proof that it does this.
What we don't know is if we are accelerating this. People keep going on and on about "volcanos spew out more" and now "trees are accelerating it too", but the fact is, these are part of Earth's natural climate. We are introducing unnatural byproducts and pollutants that are adding onto Earth's naturally produced ones. We also pumped crap into the atmosphere that put a huge hole in the ozone. Anyway you slice it, we added to an already existing system. It may not have been balanced, but by adding to it, you can be certain that it won't follow the general path if we hadn't added to it.
That's my take the situation. I already said we can't fix it, but it's going to be a helluva ride in the future. Probably do wonders to thin out the masses, maybe we're just another part of Earth's system that needs to be brought back into check by a cataclysmic event.
-
natty... trees may be a part of it but... they used to get burned up a lot more so.. that was the "natural" way of it.
I agree tho that it is impossible to know how much man is accelerating things if at all.
I also bring up again... that those of the doomsday squad have not solutions to offer save that there will have to be a lot of sacrafice by everyone save them....
They do seem to agree tho that a lot bigger and stronger government is a step in the right direction and suffering by people in other lands may be required.
lazs
-
Trees tie up Co2. Burn the tree and you release it again.
Plants tie up CO2 as well, they die, decay, become soil, maybe even oil if given enough time.
Formula:
6 CO2 + 6 H2 O „łCH12O6 + 6O2
So, there is something we can do to hold CO2, and there is no excuse not to try.
-
Originally posted by Angus
.
Plants tie up CO2 as well, they die, decay, become soil, maybe even oil if given enough time.
Rotting vegatation also PRODUCES CO2. So, in order to reap the benefits, the forests have to be thinned and maintained. That means machinery, which sets you back to a point of no gain and loss.
Holy moly........going to reinvent oil now Agnus? :)
So, there is something we can do to hold CO2, and there is no excuse not to try.
Yea, other than the fact that you can`t start at point D, E, F or so on . Point A is where you have to start. No magic wands.
-
So... saving old forests is not a good idea? we should cut em down or let em burn naturaly?
Natty... you say that there is no reason to not try. I agree, to a point.
I agree that we not try to cause a great deal of harm and mitigate it where it is inexpensive or benificial but.... There comes a point where you do not want to destroy your way of life on the off chance that you MAY be helping to some measurable degree..
which brings us back too....
What do rolex and beet suggest we do to stop this juggernaut that is on our heels and about to crush us by the time most people make the last payment on that new car?
we don't have much time here.... what ever are we to do rolex and beet????
lazs
-
Hi Lazs!
I’ve been thinking about this, and NattyIced is right. There isn’t a lot we can do – or else there’s too much for us to do, whichever way you look at it.
Lazs, you need to understand the scale of the problem, and get a sense of proportion. Every year, six billion tonnes of man-made carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere. The USA is directly responsible for 25% of that. Britain is responsible for 2%. Therefore, given that the UK population is ~58m, I am responsible for 0.0000000344% of the world total. But remember, a lot of energy is consumed for public buildings and infrastructure, and what can be directly ascribed to me in terms of gas used for heating, electricity, and diesel fuel for my car is probably more like 0.00000002% of the world total. So as you can see, changing my habits or lifestyle will make bugger all difference to the dilemma facing the world. Even if my entire town got wiped off the map, the CO2 reduction world-wide would amount to only 0.000128%. So the fatuous suggestions about cancelling a week long boat trip, or maybe turning down the gas fire or lowering the thermostat, are just that – fatuous. I should also remind you that I do not charter my own Airbus 340 when I go on a trip, and that the flights I take would be running anyway – with me or without me. Same goes for you – go on with your 8mpg hot-rodding. The CO2 reduction were you to stop would register as a blippette on the world chart.
To answer you question about where do we go from here…
Our economies are based on the burning of fossil fuels. That will probably be the case for the rest of my life and yours, because even though the oil may run out in 20-30 years, there will be a transition period when liquefied natural gas (LNG) will become a primary source of fuel. The largest stocks of LNG are to be found in Russia, Iran and Qatar. But this will last only about 20 years, and I’m not sure that even these estimates take into account the huge increase in demand for oil expected to be made by China. If this increase in demand materialises, oil costs are going to rise by huge margins – far more than the increases in the post Katrina period…
…at which point the public will be up in arms and you’ll be able to buy a 12mpg Ford Excursion for $1000 - $100 for the vehicle itself, and $900 for the fuel inside the tank. LOL. When oil becomes so expensive that we can’t afford it, it will become viable to develop alternative energy sources. There’s talk about a revival of nuclear energy. I know there are issues with nuclear waste, but these pale into insignificance compared with the fate which awaits the earth if we were to go on burning fossil fuels for the next 100 years.
As I have said before, there is one thing and one thing only that will change our demand for oil, and make us look for other energy technologies: Cost – which is itself a factor in the supply/demand equation.
-
Sure lazs, but first, can you answer some questions for me?
At what age did you become an anarchist? Was there any influence from a person or group, or did it come from reading? Did you start as a libertarian?
I'm curious, really. I've never met an anarchist.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
So as you can see, changing my habits or lifestyle will make bugger all difference to the dilemma facing the world
If everyone thought that, we wouldn't make any progress at all.
Wait... everyone does think that.
-
rolex... I don't know what my political views have to do with the subject here but....
I am not sure that I am a true anarchist or libertarian or conservative... I take what I want from each. I do know that I find myself much more often in agreement with any of those three on any subject than I do with commies or socialists or even liberals.
Now.... what exactly are those things you think we ought to be doing to save the planet....
beet and natty say... it's all over but the crying.... pretty much that... we shouldn't be making fun of the end of times guys and .... maybe... maybe those few who are running up debt and such are doing the right thing.... Why bother if we are all gonna die in 10 years or so anyway right?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
If everyone thought that, we wouldn't make any progress at all.
Wait... everyone does think that.
-
http://www.chevyapprentice.com/view.php?country=us&uniqueid=b3df6dec-0caa-1029-98eb-0013724ff5a7
-
Jackal, you really don't get this:
"Rotting vegatation also PRODUCES CO2"
Where did they get the CO2 from??????????????????
From the bloody atmosphere. If they completely rot, leaving nothing behind, then they have delivered what they had absorbed before in the first place.
C doesn't get produced. It's just the matter about WHERE it is stored.
-
zorch...your commercial remminded me that most of the greenies and doomsdayers don't know much about cars.... Just like the anti gun nuts don't know anything about guns.... but... in order to have a cause.... ya gotta have a villian right?
SUV's today get about 20 mpg... if a soccer mom loads all her kids and the neighbors into one and drives em to..... wherever... then she will still get about 20 mpg.
If she got one of the toyotas or some other crap box that makes you all wet.... she would get about 30 mpg... if she had to make three trips to do the same thing.... she would be getting 10 mpg compared to the SUV.
beet and others say that wasting fuel for their hobbies is fine because they are spreading it around with a lot of passengers. so...
instead of worrying about SUV's you should be worrying about passenger miles.
Many of the pickups you see on the road are getting within 5mpg or so of the little crap box econo boxes...
But.... what would make you happy? woud getting rid of all SUV's make this all go away?
Maybe you can help rolex and beet with that list of things we must do in the next ten years?
I can make my own list but I will wait for the chicken little ones.
lazs
-
Well, if you accept your house being on fire, and conclude there is nothing you can do about it, just gush some more gas on it. Fine for you.
But my house is adjactent, so I'm not too happy about it.
-
not really relevant angus... I would simply call the fire department or try to put it out myself and call my insurance company... these things are obvious...
What you are suggesting is more like..... "your house is in danger of burning down so you must remove everything flamable and shut off all the electricity and gas and live in the dark sleeping on stone floors or you are a fool and doomed"
Now.... you may be right.... my risky behavior may set my house on fire (and endanger yours) in the past... this was true to an even greater extent..
Did everyone just give up and live in stone houses without light or fire? No....safer methods were developed along with better firefighting.
panic stops all progress.... crisis nutures progress.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
If she got one of the toyotas or some other crap box that makes you all wet.... she would get about 30 mpg... if she had to make three trips to do the same thing.... she would be getting 10 mpg compared to the SUV.
And how often do you see an SUV being driven by a soccer mom with any more than one passenger, and maybe a ball in the back? Whenever I see a BMW X5, for example, it's usually a solo female driver, or maybe one kid aged under 10 as passenger. Sometimes they even have shopping as part of their payload!
Angus - you and I know of what we speak. We've both actually BEEN in the areas affected. Well I have sort of. :o
Arctic Ice, as seen from the 64th parallel overhead the Davis Strait between Baffin Island and Greenland
Actually the 64th parallel is just below the Arctic Circle.
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/arcticice.jpg)
Greenland
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/greenland.jpg)
-
Hmmm.... so beet... If SUV's allways had two people in em (getting an effective mpg of 40) then they would be more efficient than all the econo crap boxes that I see all the time getting 30 mpg with only one passenger?
And... even if we banned all SUV travel with less than two passengers.... what exact effect would that have on your predicted glaobal warming timetable?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Hmmm.... so beet... If SUV's allways had two people in em (getting an effective mpg of 40) then they would be more efficient than all the econo crap boxes that I see all the time getting 30 mpg with only one passenger?
Loaded question. And... even if we banned all SUV travel with less than two passengers.... what exact effect would that have on your predicted glaobal warming timetable?
Less effect than a $1/gallon increase in the price of gas.
-
Ok.... what effect would the raising of the gas price have on your timetable and.... what would you do with that money? we know what government does with tax money so don't say "we" would spend it on new solutions...
so... how much is enough to stop the sky from falling and england being drowned and angus falling thru the ice?
lazs
-
Not a simple equation, Lazs, because we'd have to take into account the energy demands of other countries like China and India, bearing in mind that demand in those countries is changing and is set to skyrocket. World-wide demand will begin to outstrip supply, and the price will go up, leading to a glut of SUVs.
Remember that CO2 output is not just from vehicles, but also from electricity generation.
All things considered, oil might last another ~20 years. Hopefully by then we will have the technology to harness LNG gas supplies, should the countries that have it in abundance be willing to sell it to us. And, one hopes that the difficulties surrounding nuclear energy might have been solved by then.
-
zorch...your commercial remminded me that most of the greenies and doomsdayers don't know much about cars.... Just like the anti gun nuts don't know anything about guns.... but... in order to have a cause.... ya gotta have a villian right?
SUV's today get about 20 mpg... if a soccer mom loads all her kids and the neighbors into one and drives em to..... wherever... then she will still get about 20 mpg.
If she got one of the toyotas or some other crap box that makes you all wet.... she would get about 30 mpg... if she had to make three trips to do the same thing.... she would be getting 10 mpg compared to the SUV.
beet and others say that wasting fuel for their hobbies is fine because they are spreading it around with a lot of passengers. so...
instead of worrying about SUV's you should be worrying about passenger miles.
Many of the pickups you see on the road are getting within 5mpg or so of the little crap box econo boxes...
But.... what would make you happy? woud getting rid of all SUV's make this all go away?
Maybe you can help rolex and beet with that list of things we must do in the next ten years?
I can make my own list but I will wait for the chicken little ones.
lazs
This is the second time you've flamed me for posting something funny;
http://www.chevyapprentice.com/view.php?country=us&uniqueid=b3df6dec-0caa-1029-98eb-0013724ff5a7
It's a joke dude, lighten up. Maybe a laxative will help.
Personally, I drive a 78 Chevy pickup with a 350ci 4bbl that gets 10mpg highway with a tailwind, and an LTD Crown Victoria 351ci FI that gets 12mpg.
Now to its credit, the crown vic can seat six comfortably - But >95% of the time it's hauling the driver in solo comfort, as are most of the SUVs on the road most of the time.
Global warming is real. The hole in the ozone layer is real. Do I want to give up my favorite toys? No way. But I'm also not going to stick my head in the sand and deny the impact they have.
-
zorch - quite right!
Tony Blair was interviewed on the 6 o'clock news on BBC1 last night. The segment began in a town on the south coast (Hastings or Brighton, or somewhere like that) and a woman of late middle age was being asked about her home and how fuel efficient it was. The cameras went inside and - horror of horrors - found that her sash windows didn't fit well and were allowing draughts into the room. Also, her room had a disued chimney which was not closed off and allowed a draught to come down. Erm, hello? This is piddling stuff, which, if corrected, will make bugger all difference to the world CO2 output. I almost began to think Charlotte was doing the interview! :lol
A nonplussed Tony Blair faced the cameras, and as he pointed out, quite correctly, Britain isn't going to be carrying the torch in the race against global warming, as Britain produces only 2% of man made CO2 world-wide. As he went on to say, the biggest impact will have to be made by China, India and America. Those were the three countries he listed, and in that order.
-
lazs2:
Your house is on fire. There is a fire brigade. Is there still an excuse NOT to fight the fire until the fire brigade belives that your house is on fire?
Well, as a parallell, my basement flooded a year ago. We called the fire brigade (They have very good pumps). They didn't quite realize the size of the matter before too late. By then we had some 5 inches of water on the floors, and this is a flat!. Anyway, I had taken precautions, and we had 1 slurry pump and 1 9000 litres tank with a vacum pump (Agricultural equipment) en route. It saved the day, although the flooding (heavy rain with thaw) was extreme, we managed to hold the fort so to speak, and eventually the flooding was finished and we pumped the basement free.
Max water level was at some point some 9 inches.
With just the fire brigade guys, it would have been 1.5 metres.
Get my point?
-
In this case, the only thing you are doing is delaying how long it takes till your house burns down. Global warming will happen regardless of humans. It's happened in the past, it's happening again now. It's only a question of whether or not we are accelerating it.
-
What a lot of you seem to forget is that the rate of warming is extremely important: with a slow warming, man, beasts and plants will have more time to adapt to the new conditions, or migrate if needed.
With a fast warming, a lot of agricultural zones can turn into desert leading to decades of world-wide lack of food (and wars to keep/gain the last zones of usable soil).
Lack of oil doesn't scare me much: the society will change, that's for sure, but as Lazs said man functions better under pressure and solutions will be found. With a lack of food, it will be the law of the jungle.
-
Nattyiced:
"In this case, the only thing you are doing is delaying how long it takes till your house burns down. Global warming will happen regardless of humans"
Firstly, you don't know if it's going to burn down. You wouldn't stand idly by, if your house caught fire, would you??????
Secondly, Global warming may happen regardless of humans, but this is not the case this time. The earlier it is countered, the more can be done.
Earth can handle quite a bit itself. More CO2 available to vegetation for instance, will actually encourage growth, - thereby tying down more CO2.
(CO2 is actually used as a sort of a "fertilizer" in greenhouse production)
However, that is futile, if there is not enough vegetation to make any use of the increase in CO2.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Firstly, you don't know if it's going to burn down. You wouldn't stand idly by, if your house caught fire, would you??????
The globe heats up, then it cools down. It's a cycle.
Originally posted by Angus
Secondly, Global warming may happen regardless of humans, but this is not the case this time. The earlier it is countered, the more can be done.
Obviously you have absolute proof that is not contradicted.
-
You miss the point. The globe heating up this fast, is neither necessary nor a part of a natural cycle. The natural cycle as far as is known is actually slower, with the exceptions of extremities, which are mostly global COOLING. (cycles that last "only" some 200 years for instance)
-
Originally posted by deSelys
What a lot of you seem to forget is that the rate of warming is extremely important: with a slow warming, man, beasts and plants will have more time to adapt to the new conditions, or migrate if needed.
What seems to be missed WRT speed of change is catastrophic weather bursts... STORMS. Super Hurricanes, F-5 Tornadoes, Blizzards... and the destruction that these cause puts an immense strain on the infrastructure of the immediately unaffected geographic areas. Slap down a few seaboard cities, make the sealanes chancy, rip up a few breadbasket locations, immobilize out a few cities in a super blizzard... disrupt rail and road transport...
Just one super hurricane on the gulf coast last year sent the fuel/food/commerce chain reeling.. we ALL felt the effects.
Our civilization is massively intertwined.. and fragile as a result. Kick it; it reacts; people will freak.
-
I am afraid Jackal was quite right on one issue. People in general won't do doodly-squat about the issue before it is possibly too late.
Still, some extremities in the climates might cause a change.....
-
HHHMMM the earth cooled down and warmed up all by it's little 'ol self more than once before man and then at least once after man arrived. Now it's continuing the cycle and industrialized man is here so now it's all due to him. Exactly how long did the last 2 warming cycles take? Same question for the last 2 ice ages. What is the normal rate of change and where is it documented with observations and measurements. Given the data from only the last 2 cycles how is this warming trend different timewise?
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Just one super hurricane on the gulf coast last year sent the fuel/food/commerce chain reeling.. we ALL felt the effects.
Washinton Post December 22, 2005
Hurricane Katrina will go down in the history books as the costliest hurricane in U.S. history, but not by a long shot the most powerful.
The National Hurricane Center released a summary report on Katrina this week that downgraded the storm's intensity at landfall in Louisiana on Aug. 29 from Category 4 to Category 3. The winds in New Orleans, which lay to the west of the storm's center, were probably even weaker than that, at Category 1 or 2 speeds, the report said.
BEAUMONT, Texas (AP) — Most of the area affected by Hurricane Rita last September faced winds weaker than the 111-130 mph range seen with the Category 3 storm, according to a final report by the National Hurricane Center.
The storm packed maximum sustained winds of 115 mph, classifying it as a Category 3 when it made landfall at 2:40 a.m. Sept. 24 between Johnson’s Bayou, La., and Sabine Pass, according to the report. Hurricane-force winds extended 86 miles from the center the day before landfall.
But the report also said many areas in extreme southeastern Texas and extreme southwestern Louisiana experienced Category 1 hurricane conditions (74-95 mph), and a few areas experienced Category 2 hurricane conditions (96-110 mph).
Only 3 Category Five Hurricanes have made landfall in the United States since records began: The Labor Day Hurricane of 1935, Hurricane Camille (1969), and Hurricane Andrew in August, 1992
-
The rate of changes was subtly predicted this time, - the parameters NOT being natural causes.
It is coming true quite fast, faster than predicted.
(I am not sure that there was a cycle that fast, - either way, - it's not good news)
So, you dropped a match, and there is a fire in the house....what do you do?
-
This thread is amazing. I check it once a day, and the last two posts are almost always the same thing, yet the thread keeps growing.
Damnedest thing I have ever seen.
Oh, AND WE ARE ALL GONNA DIE!!!! EEEEEEEKKKKKK!!!!
-
Originally posted by Angus
The rate of changes was subtly predicted this time, - the parameters NOT being natural causes.
It is coming true quite fast, faster than predicted.
(I am not sure that there was a cycle that fast, - either way, - it's not good news)
So, you dropped a match, and there is a fire in the house....what do you do?
Ok so it is coming faster than predicted. Is it possible that the predictions are what is at fault? Can you specify what the predictions were for the previous 2 cycles and the actual rates as occured? Then perhaps we can see if the predictions are accurate vs the actual situation or not and what the previous track record at predictions has been.
Frankly given the sorry results of weathermen for next weeks weather at any given specific spot I shudder to think how accurate a prediction covering 100 years will be.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
the last two posts are almost always the same thing
-to be expected when some people don't read what's been written to them, and it ends up having to be repeated.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Frankly given the sorry results of weathermen for next weeks weather at any given specific spot I shudder to think how accurate a prediction covering 100 years will be.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
Here is food for thought, Nation-wide, even WITH doppler advanced radar, national weathermen(persons) are 51% accurate with their forecasts for any given 24 hour period.
Might as well flip a coin.
Back to the Global warming rant that its all America's fault....
-
ok beet... so you say that banning SUV's will stretch out the supply of oil another 20 years?
Can I see the math on that one?
angus... I think that my example of the house and fire is more to the point. A fire is something anyone could see... I would not need to convince anyone..
What you suggest is that I turn off all my electricity and gas and pull out everything that might burn and sleep on the concrete floor just in case there might be a fire. You can't tell me that any of this will prevent me from having my house burned and you admit that the forest round here burns every few years and takes everything with it but.....
Sooo..... what are the solutions? beet is the only one with any answers and as soon as we get the math from him we will know why it is good to ban SUV's and pick up 20 years of oil (how that will stop global warming is still unclear tho).
zorch at least admits that he isn't gonna do a damn thing unless it is someone else doing the suffering but he claims the global warming is real...
so zorch... You get to be in the panel... What should we do? What do you suggest?
lazs
-
Can I be on the panel too?
(http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040913/images/powerplant.jpg)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
ok beet... so you say that banning SUV's will stretch out the supply of oil another 20 years?
Can I see the math on that one?
No, I didn't say that, so no - you can't. Can't be arsed to repeat what I said.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Sooo..... what are the solutions? beet is the only one with any answers and as soon as we get the math from him we will know why it is good to ban SUV's and pick up 20 years of oil (how that will stop global warming is still unclear tho).
Maybe should do opposite, give big tax incentives to encourage big SUV & dry up that oil problem sooner rather than later.
So if I have suburban with 5 kids & wife driving down that highway with 20 mpg, am I much better conserving that the guy riding solo in his new 40 mpg hybrid?
-
(http://www.junkscience.com/images/nq050606.gif)
(http://www.junkscience.com/images/nq050608.gif)
(http://www.junkscience.com/images/nq050610.gif)
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
This thread is amazing. I check it once a day, and the last two posts are almost always the same thing, yet the thread keeps growing.
Damnedest thing I have ever seen.
Oh, AND WE ARE ALL GONNA DIE!!!! EEEEEEEKKKKKK!!!!
Some day we all smell bad 6ft under or go up with flames but question is what do we leave for the future generations.
IIRC you have at least one son; have you ever thought what kind of world is he living in 50 years? How about his childrens?
Skuzzy You clearly have an opinion...
Do you think global warming is A) actually happening or B) a hoax?
If it's former should we try to control it or just push the pedal further and enjoy the ride?
If it's latter... Can you be 100% sure?
-
Oh, Mav:
"Can you specify what the predictions were for the previous 2 cycles and the actual rates as occured?"
Those were so slow, and long ago, that there were no predictions.
I grew up with predictions of:
1 Large earthquake in my area within 30 years tops (1975, - the quake happened in 2000 well, normal stuff)
2. Reduced ozon layer, especially near to the poles. Consequences unknown. While this possibility and the cause was debated for years it finally turned out to be true, and with us humans to be blamed, - sadly so I must say, and measures are being taken to minimize the reduction (to allow nature a little more chance to balance it, if possible) of the ozon layer.
3. Global warming due to greenhouse effecting gases being exhausted.
This is basically due to us mankind digging up charbon and burning it up therefore sending the base chemical into the athmosphere, as well as reducing the binding of CO2 through less forests and more deserts for instance.
The first calculated prediction of the effect is more than a 100 years old, - the question being something like "what if mankind populates increasingly for some 100 years at the current or logical rate and keeps up the usage of coal and oil with the same increase, - how is the atmosphere going to be??"
Allright. Effects predicted in the last years are such as polar caps melting, and basically more energy in the atmosphere. While this was booed at in the beginning, it actually is occuring at a very measurable level. Some places on earth didn't warm, but the whole effect still remains as it is, - the globe is warming as predicted and calculated, and actually faster.
A few years ago, the main debate about global warming was whether it was happening at all. Today it is beyond that. Now we are debaiting whether it is our fault and if there is something we can do about it. The Western civilization is split into two about this, with the bigger belly on the consumption side playing as the denialist.
Strange, isn't it?
-
Originally posted by Angus
2. Reduced ozon layer, especially near to the poles. Consequences unknown. While this possibility and the cause was debated for years it finally turned out to be true, and with us humans to be blamed, - sadly so I must say, and measures are being taken to minimize the reduction (to allow nature a little more chance to balance it, if possible) of the ozon layer.
You can find monthly average ozone graphics here (http://toms.gsfc.nasa.gov/). Stratospheric ozone is not a fixed and finite resource, but is constantly created and destroyed by solar radiation. The more ozone (O3) is destroyed, the more free oxygen radicals (O1) are available to bind with free oxygen (O2) to create ozone (O3), the same applies with free oxygen (O2).
-
Originally posted by Staga
Some day we all smell bad 6ft under or go up with flames but question is what do we leave for the future generations.
IIRC you have at least one son; have you ever thought what kind of world is he living in 50 years? How about his childrens?
Skuzzy You clearly have an opinion...
Do you think global warming is A) actually happening or B) a hoax?
If it's former should we try to control it or just push the pedal further and enjoy the ride?
If it's latter... Can you be 100% sure?
Sure, I have an opinion. For me, it is not a question as to whether or not it is happening. Earth goes through cycles which cannot be hindered by man. The cycles do not stop. The only question I have to answer is, will mankind's apathy kill us before Earth does or vice-versa?
In the overall scheme of things, anything we do is petty compared to the whole picture.
I see no point in discussions like this one, given my opinion.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Jackal, you really don't get this:
"Rotting vegatation also PRODUCES CO2"
Where did they get the CO2 from??????????????????
From the bloody atmosphere. If they completely rot, leaving nothing behind, then they have delivered what they had absorbed before in the first place.
C doesn't get produced. It's just the matter about WHERE it is stored.
I get it just fine Angus, but thanks for your concern. :)
Yes, rotting vegetation produces CO2 and it is released into the ...atmosphere.
As a matter of fact, in "your side" of theory experts are saying that some of the rotting marshs are a culprit. Go figure.
I`m seriously beginning to feel that you believe in fairy tales Angus.
There are no magic wands. You can`t start from point D,E or F..so on and so on.
OK, you claim plant forests. In order for any even minimum effect they would have to be MASSIVE. They would have to be planted. You would have to have a few million acres to do so on. It would take equipment,(since no ancient Eygyptians have voulunteered so far). They would have to be maintained, thinned and cultivated to avoid setting you back to a place before point A.
To start with, you need to get all the world leaders to agree on something, as brought up before. We`re to busy right now trying to figure out how to wipe each other out. How in the H do you plan on or suggest this gets done? You can`t answer that, as has been shown here, because-------> It Ain`t Gonna happen.
It`s simple. Fairy tales.
I`ll tell ya what. You line up a few spare million acres and get it agreed upon to use these for earth saving forests, then get me a few thousand ancient Eygyptian volunteers and I`ll get on board. Please get back to me on this when it has been accomplished.
I do hope Beet has the Discovery channel. There is an upcoming program dealing with the Megawave that is proposed to wipe out London in the future. I know Beet, being the person he is, will want to get in on the ground floor of the building of a GIANT seawall to prevent this. :)
Maybe they can buid the fictional seawall with the fictional lumber from your fictional forests.
:rofl
I`m not sure which program airs first...the upcoming Iceage or the Megawave. Have to check listings I guess in between planting and ancient Eygyptian recruiting. :)
-
Angus,
Ozone layer and earthquakes are beyond the scope of the conversation. In otherwords they have no bearing on it.
Since there is no data, no measurements and no one from the previous ice / warming eras I think it's safe to say that it is impossible to tell if there has been any change whatsoever in the warming cycle timing. If the warming cycle is proceding faster than predicted the rational person would suspect the predictions are in error, not try to bend reality to your pre conceived notion.
In short from what I see this is a wonderful example of chicken little running in circles screaming the sky is falling. There is no test yet that can determine the time of the eras of temperature cycles.
I don't have a bit of a problem with people saying the earth is warming. I have a big problem with people saying man is responsible for it or even that we have tilted the cycle to a much increaded rate of warming. It's nothing but supposition and scare mongering.
-
Well, yes, but yet we have holes in the layer, and they weren't there before.
-
Originally posted by Charlotte
I do hope Beet has the Discovery channel. There is an upcoming program dealing with the Megawave that is proposed to wipe out London in the future. I know Beet, being the person he is, will want to get in on the ground floor of the building of a GIANT seawall to prevent this. :)
Maybe they can buid the fictional seawall with the fictional lumber from your fictional forests.
Charlotte, do try to keep up. The flooding of London was recognised long ago as a potential hazard, and so the Thames Barrier was built, and opened by HM the Queen in 1984. If you'd actually been here, you might even know about this. Do a Google search on Thames Barrier, or see this link: http://www.thamesbarrierpark.org.uk/thebarrier.htm I do not get the Discovery Channel - what's that? A US channel? Is it broadcast here? Probably not... If it has an archive for programmes that have been aired, I'll gladly download it on my 1MB connection. :D Poor Lotty - always so far behind - thinks that Britain is an absolute monarchy, no idea about our flood defences, still using dialup... :(
We must surely be getting to the end of this thread by now, so here's what I think as of today. - The earth is warming, and glaciers and polar icecaps are melting, so sea levels are rising.
- I accept that the warming is partly as a result of natural cycles.
- Man made carbon emissions greatly exacerbate the problem.
- I don't honestly know the ratio of responsibility between natural cycle and man made carbon emission, but...
- studies of arctic ice have determined that it contains more CO2 than at any time in the last 650,000 years.
- Oil has already started running out in places. In the next 20 years it will become much more expensive, and therefore alternatives (like nuclear which produces zero atmospheric emissions) will become viable.
- Lazs is right in saying that Man will go to the brink before starting to develop a new energy source - I expect the same thing.
- LNG reserves around the world will act like a buffer in the transition from oil to nuke/hydrogen technology.
- We'll all be dead by the time this transition is complete.
-
Guess what, just heard it today.
2005 is the warmest year globalwise since the beginning of recordings.
Surprize!
-
I heard today that if you burp, fart & sneeze all at the same time, you die
-
And you can't sneeze with your eyes open....:rofl
-
skuzzy said... "Sure, I have an opinion. For me, it is not a question as to whether or not it is happening. Earth goes through cycles which cannot be hindered by man. The cycles do not stop. The only question I have to answer is, will mankind's apathy kill us before Earth does or vice-versa?
In the overall scheme of things, anything we do is petty compared to the whole picture.
I see no point in discussions like this one, given my opinion."
this is exactly the correct viewpoint to have in my opinion.... beet can tell us how much fuel banning SUV's will save (if nothing else in the complex equation changes) but.... he can't tell us how much that will affect global warming.
The earths climate has changed back and forth.... without us ever being there.... it will change again.... It MAY be changing for the warmer right now.... it may get a lot warmer before it gets cooler.... it may not. I don't think we have a lot to do with it or can do much about it in any case...
I think that beet just doesn't like SUV's and.... he enjoys ordering people around...
"but...but... we have to do something.... if there is even as slim chance we are making things worse somehow.."
sure... like what? You don't cut your head off because you may get a pimple on your nose next month.
Soooo..... what do the chicken littles say? what can we do and how much time will it put off the armegedon?
And skuzzy... the point of these discussions is to let some air into a very stale room.
lazs
-
Originally posted by beet1e
- Man made carbon emissions greatly exacerbate the problem.
- I don't honestly know the ratio of responsibility between natural cycle and man made carbon emission, but...
- studies of arctic ice have determined that it contains more CO2 than at any time in the last 650,000 years.
[/B]
I dunno beet. Your posts entertain me, but sometimes I think you've read too much junk science... or selectively read it. Did you get your information from the UN World Meteorological Organization's recent report? We're 35% higher right? Well, not exactly. The report says we're at 377ppm, no arguing that. However, their baseline for the comparison can be interpreted however they see fit. 19th Century direct measurements (1810 & up) of atmospheric co2 ranged from 250ppm to 550ppm. Instead, current scientists use ice cores, which are less accurate than direct measurement, ranging from 160ppm to 700ppm, topping out at 2,450ppm. Since the higher estimates are politically incorrect, they haven't been mentioned in scientific literature since the mid-1980s. Ironically, this is about when the global warming crisis took root.
The rationale for ignoring the higher readings? Oh, they've been contaminated... but keep reading and you're realise this destroys the validity of all their ice core based measurements.
In order for ice core data to be considered reliable, the ice matrix must be a closed system – that is, once air is trapped in ice it should remain unchanged. A glacier however is an open system. Liquid water is present even in the coldest Antarctic ice (-73 degrees Centigrade). The composition of the air in the ice continues to change. The chemical processes don't just stop. Simply drilling down causes cracks in the ice, which deplete more gasses as various pressures, leading to a net loss of CO2 in the ice cores.
That is in exact opposition to the assertion that the higher readings are contaminated. In fact, it is more likely that the lower readings are contaminated instead.
My source is Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski. He's been studying glaciers for the last 40 years, and gave testimony to the US Senate 2 years ago about this exact topic.
-
Indy
Like I said, I don't honestly know the full story about that ice analysis. I read an article about it in the last year.
Lazs - can you provide a link or a quote, showing where I said that SUVs should be banned?
-
Originally posted by beet1e
. The flooding of London was recognised long ago as a potential hazard, and so the Thames Barrier was built, and opened by HM the Queen in 1984. B]
The barrier would be a little outdated according to this scenario.
We`re not just talking flooding here. From the previews and such they are suggesting that a Giant wave of unprecedented proportions is to completely wipe London out. Your barrier would be a fly in a hurricane. We are talking DOOMSDAY here Marie. Get to hopping. :rofl
Ummmm Beet, you do understand the term "upcoming", dontcha? It hasn`t aired yet. Also , as mentioned earlier, the program about the coming Iceage is to air. Not sure which one airs first. It`s got me in a real stir. I don`t know whether to invest in a life raft to send to you are some insulated underwear for myself.
Then again....I`ve got to consider the Super Volcano erupting at Jellystone...ummm Yellowstone that has been predicted to erupt. Hmmmmmm.....Maybe a inflatable, insulated firesuit would be the ticket. So many doomsdays and so little time.
We also have to figure out a way to get Lazs moved to Texas in a hurry due to the fact that the west coast is supposed to sluff off into the sea.
was built, and opened by HM the Queen in 1984. B]
[/QUOTE]
She must be one hard workin moma to do all this by herself. Give her a break and help out on the GIANT seawall, will ya.
If you'd actually been here, you might even know about this
Sorry...being bored to death while drowning is not my bag. :rofl
-
Ah - finally we hear from Charlotte. I guess it takes a few hours to download the O'Club pages through a dialup connect. :rofl
Your barrier would be a fly in a hurricane.
We've had two serious storms in the capital since the Thames Barrier was erected. London has not been wiped out. The first one was in 1987. I was working in London at the time, and had a job to get there on the day after. Hardly anyone made it into work that day. It looked like a Sunday. Those old enough to remember said it looked like the aftermath of the blitz, what with all the trees down. You can read about it here (http://www.stvincent.ac.uk/Resources/Weather/Severe/oct87.html).
Worse was to come, with hurricane conditions in 1990. "The highest gust from the storm was 108 mph, recorded at Aberporth in western Wales, whilst a 100m high crane in Birmingham city centre recorded a gust of 100mph. Gusts typically reached 70-80mph across the Midlands, where there is a return period of 50-100 years for gusts of this magnitude, and 80-100mph on the south coast of England. Full story here (http://www.dandantheweatherman.com/Bereklauw/Burnsday.htm). And... London did not get flooded. :D
"Upcoming"? I think you mean forthcoming. Well Charlotte, I would definitely like to see that programme, and I can't get it here. Perhaps you could download it for me? On second thoughts, maybe not. The next great ice age will be upon us by the time your dialup has processed the last byte!
:rofl
-
What`s storms got to do, got to do with it....You are thinking small here. No storm. Total destruction. You better put in a fictional bid for some fictional lumber from Agnus`s fictional forests before it is too late.
"The highest gust from the storm was 108 mph, recorded at Aberporth in western Wales, whilst a 100m high crane in Birmingham city centre recorded a gust of 100mph. Gusts typically reached 70-80mph across the Midlands, where there is a return period of 50-100 years for gusts of this magnitude, and 80-100mph on the south coast of England.
:D Wheeew weeeee...100 mph and you call that a storm. Marie, that would be considered a spring shower here in Texas. Good for the tomatos. Makes em stronger. :)
"Upcoming"? I think you mean forthcoming. Well Charlotte,
Naaaw, I meant upcoming.
-
Well, you mentioned hurricanes first, Charlotte. So I gave examples in London. The second of those storms qualified as a hurricane, with winds of 108mph. See definition: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hurricane
Wheeew weeeee...100 mph and you call that a storm.
No mate, that's a hurricane. See above ^ The barrier would be a little outdated according to this scenario.
What, you mean like the levees in New Orleans? We`re not just talking flooding here. From the previews and such they are suggesting that a Giant wave of unprecedented proportions is to completely wipe London out.
Like a tsunami? Well, you've piqued my interest! Especially as there's no seismic activity around here.
-
sure... like what? You don't cut your head off because you may get a pimple on your nose next month.
despite our freverent hopes that he does.
Both.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
[/url] No mate, that's a hurricane. See above ^
A light Texas coastal breeze. :)
Like a tsunami? Well, you've piqued my interest! Especially as there's no seismic activity around here.
:rofl Well..you were having a little trouble describing a storm , so......................:)
http://http://dsc.discovery.com/
Look under Megaflood, etc. Proud to fire up that thirst for knowledge. You seem to be a little stale since the sandland trip. Too many goat eyeballs? :D
Seriously though........ While you are at the Discovery site , check out the Deadliest Catch series. I beleive, not certain , that you can get them on DVD.
In my opinion this was the best series ever put on TV. Both season one and two are very interesting, but IMHO season one was the best due to it being the end of derby style for the crabbers.
Might be a little too exciting for you, don`t know. :)
I know, I know..off topic.
-
.
Like a tsunami? Well, you've piqued my interest! Especially as there's no seismic activity around here.
I wouldn't say no activity, although it is low.
(http://z.about.com/d/geology/1/0/2/G/europe.jpg)
It looks like there is a bigger hazard in southern Norway and since an event just off Sumatra killed Sri Lankans several time zones away you're not completely out of the woods
-
Charlotte - your URL link needs fixing. But that's OK, I found the site, but it told me little more than that the programme is er, forthcoming.
I did some googling of my own, and found that London has been flooded many times. There are records of this going back to the 11th century. There was a major flood in 1953, which resulted in several people being drowned.
Here is a useful link about London's flood protection: http://www.thamesweb.com/topic.php?topic_name=Flood%20Defence
If you would look at the red chart towards the bottom of the linked page, you will see that the number of times that the flood barrier has had to be closed has been increasing over the years. This has been caused by rising sea levels, themselves caused by glacier and polar ice cap meltdown, and is entirely consistent with what Rolex, Angus and myself have been saying throughout this thread.
However the worst London flooding in living memory was perhaps the 1953 disaster. Link: http://www.thamesweb.com/page.php?page_id=59&topic_id=9
Bad though some of the floods have been over the last 10 centuries, I have yet to read anything on an authentic website which supports the theory of London being "completely wiped out". For one thing, the area of London around Selhurst Park (whose football ground is shared by Wimbledon and Crystal Palace football clubs) is about 500ft amsl! Only a stonking tsunami wave could reach that!
:rofl
-
Don`t bother me while I`m trying to devote my time to enlisting and signing up ancient Eyyptian volunteers. Facts only clutter up such threads as this.
Off the wall predictions and impending doom is the flavor for today. :rolleyes:
-
(http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/graphics/large/18.jpg)
In the last 100 years, SL has risen somewhere between 10 and 25 CM
The predictor models in the graphic show between 10 and 100 CM in the next century.
Of course, on a geologic time scale, the sea level fluctuates on the order of 100 M under normal natural forces.
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/clisci100k.html#sea
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
yet the thread keeps growing.
Damnedest thing I have ever seen.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/22_1143749450_bunny.jpg)
;)
-
Jackal:
"You are thinking small here. No storm. Total destruction. You better put in a fictional bid for some fictional lumber from Agnus`s fictional forests before it is too late. "
Well, actually the destruction of forests and corrosion is perhaps a bigger problem than Greenhouse effects.
They relate of course.
Vast planting is one way to counter things, NOT destroying forests to get cheaper coffe and beef is another thing.
-
Urchin,
Check out "Falling Angels" by Niven/Pournelle (if I recall correctly). It's fiction based on the premise that we *should* be in an ice age but modern influences are holding it back until the environment abruptly crosses over to massive cooling effects.
Pournelle's basic point is that there is no *good* science behind the anti-global warming measures. Sure there is a lot of evidence that the earth is warming, but the actual scientific data is completely insufficient to begin prescribing expensive measures or declaring this or that technology is the cause. Not only is the data insufficient, the ONLY major efforts underway in this area are expensive endeavours to combat technologies that have been the targets of environmental whackos for decades. There are NO major long-term scientific efforts being funded by ANY government, university, or environmental group to fully understand the environment and to separate natural effects/cycles vs. human created effects.
In the book, the folly of undertaking massive knee-jerk reactions to environmental changes without even trying to understanding the underlying systems leads to a sudden ice age. That's the danger we're facing now, and it's not just global temperatures. When the global DDT ban went into effect, it helped save numerous species from extinction but it's also doomed millions of people to die from malaria and other insect-spread disease. Why can't the world allow DDT to be used in areas where the wildlife impact is limited to the insects that are truly controlled by NOTHING BUT DDT? Why? Because the DDT ban was an emotional reaction, not the result of a thorough scientific analysis of effects, benefits, and drawbacks. A North American ban makes sense, but an African ban does not. So millions die while we congratulate ourselves on the return of the Bald Eagle and the California Condor...
The same risk exists for all the proposed global warming remedies. We don't understand the systems but we're undertaking massive economic and industrial changes without true scientific basis. Yes, everyone can agree that acid rain is *bad* and airborne particulates are unhealthy. But there are other areas under scrutiny that follow the pattern:
I don't like xxx
Global warming!!!!!111one
Ban xxx !!111one
Fallen Angels is fiction, but it's a perspective that people don't think about because the global environment is being debated on an emotional level instead of a long-term unbiased scientific basis.
-
Look here:
CO2 in the atmosphere:
(http://www.keelynet.com/global/co2pbs/graph4.gif)
And then the temperature:
(http://www.keelynet.com/global/co2pbs/graph2.gif)
Funny, isn't it!
-
And another one....
(http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/air/images/Global_Temps.jpg)
-
OK, we can do some chart swapping.
One dimenisional don`t cut it though.
They are all studies which only result in theories.
Theories being the key word.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/22_1143813895_sat.jpg)
-
...except that Angus's last pic comes from the Department of Ecology on Washington's official state website. Yours looks like it comes from some aces high repository...
-
Originally posted by Angus
Jackal:
"You are thinking small here. No storm. Total destruction. You better put in a fictional bid for some fictional lumber from Agnus`s fictional forests before it is too late. "
Well, actually the destruction of forests and corrosion is perhaps a bigger problem than Greenhouse effects.
They relate of course.
Vast planting is one way to counter things, NOT destroying forests to get cheaper coffe and beef is another thing.
Rut Roh! Missed this one . Sorry.
Vast planting is not going to happen on a scale of which would have even a microscopic difference. Even , in such a fairy tale scenario , if it were done, it would set us back a few hundred years in the process from a CO2 output standpoint. Point A, yaknow. :)
Forest fires wipe out thousands and thousands of acres a year. This has been happening as long as history has been recorded. So, on one hand , it wipes out the forest growth, while on the other hand it produces and encourages new, healthy growth. Mother nature`s cycles. Same with weather patterns and temperature. They fluctuate and change cycles.
As far as corrosion goes........In my life time I have seen great improvemnts and changes in the way corrosion is handled and stopped , dead in it`s tracks. One small example would be the use of terraces. Has worked wonders here in the last fifty years or so. Leave it to the brilliant to "come up with" a plan such as this. A plan that was used and implemented dating back to at least biblical times. Simplicity, old tryed and true methods and plain old common sense will do more good without having drastic negative effects. Experimenting based on some half baked theories when it concerns mother nature is just not too great of an idea.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
...except that Angus's last pic comes from the Department of Ecology on Washington's official state website. Yours looks like it comes from some aces high repository...
So Beet, all of a sudden you have done a complete 180 and proclaim your total devotion and trust in those in Washington. That, my friend , is equal to me booking a trip to England. :rofl
-
ROFL - not DC, Washington state. Can't see why I'm breaking new ground by quoting an American source. I'm a great fan of Sagan, as well you know! And... in the USA green up (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=166510) thread, I quoted several American sources of info.
-
What Angus charts show is that over the last 140 years the average temperature has risen by .9 degrees celsius.
Jackal's chart shows that the average temperature rose by .5 degree celsius during the twenty year period from 1978 to 1998...then there was an abrupt drop of almost .3 degree celius from 1998 to 1999.
What does it all MEAN!!?? I'm so CONFUSED!!
-
Personally, I blame the co2 on the Brits (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4861800.stm). :lol
Seriously though, I gotta call shennanigans(sp?) on all of the charts. Just browsing the web you can find UAH MSU with a +0.293 deg C variation for 02-06, with GISTEMP you get +0.86 for 02-06, NCDC Anomaly 02/06 @ +0.44...
Now, considering we don't even know the absolute mean surface temperature of the planet to +-0.7 deg C anyways... which one of those is supposed to be correct?
Angus, you should check out this book (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521010683/sr=8-1/qid=1143816320/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-1769925-6470442?%5Fencoding=UTF8) by Bjorn Lomborg. iirc, he's a Danish statician. Good read.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Can't see why I'm breaking new ground by quoting an American source.
:rofl Breaking new ground???? Beet, you have been on the same path so long it has ruts in it three feet deep. :)
I'm a great fan of Sagan
Well, I take it back. There is something new and original. Self bashing/self ridicule. :rofl
I quoted several American sources of info.
Back to the norm.
The point being, there are many studies and theories from many places , with many different opinions and beliefs. The only thing certain is that all of them are theory.
-
And there's this - as can be seen, the Thames Barrier at Woolwich, which forms London's main flood defence and was completed in 1984, has had to be closed more times each year with the passage of time, due to rising sea levels caused by (you guessed it!) global warming and polar ice cap meltdown.
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/tb_closures1.jpg)
It is estimated that as sea levels continue to rise, the Thames Barrier may not form an adequate defence by 2030, and something else will have to be built in its place.
Study this chart carefully - it is fact, not theory - for those of us who know the difference!
-
Originally posted by beet1e
due to rising sea levels caused by (you guessed it!) global warming and polar ice cap meltdown.
........................which is ONE theory. Another being it is mother nature`s natural chain of events and cycling, which has been occuring since the first recorded history.
-
The sea levels have risen, Charlotte. Why else would they need to close the flood barrier? (of whose very existence you were unaware until yesterday) What other possible reason can there be, other than the FACT that sea levels are rising? Where is all the extra water coming from?
Time for another cup of tea. My cup is empty - oh wait, that's just a theory. :rofl
-
LOL Beet.. so, what reversed the sealevel rise on the Thames in 2002?
-
There's also no explanation for each closure. A 20 year old wall would require a bit of maintenance I would think. Needs more data to be compelling. It rises 13 times, but falls off 7 times. Can the sea just not make up it's mind?
-
beet.. you have asked for british like gas penalties for American fuel... this is in effect, a ban on SUV's for all but the rich and you know it.
angus....your chart seems to use your numbers for co2 but I believe that indy pointed out that the range of co2 from the distant past could make the chart even look backwards if you wanted it to. cherry picking data does not help yours or the chicken little scientist cause at all.
It seems that most anyone who thinks about it would conclude that the earth is going through a warming trend currently... who knows how much or for how long?
It would also make sense to conclude that the no one can tell us how much effect we as a race of people are having on it or even..... if we are making natural cooling and heating trends better or worse...
lazs
-
yup.
the smart bet is to keep an eye on the weather and have a bug out plan if yer in a storm prone area.
..... same plan our ancestors had.
the rest is useless teeth gnashing.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
beet.. you have asked for british like gas penalties for American fuel... this is in effect, a ban on SUV's for all but the rich and you know it.
No I didn't. I drew attention to what happens when gas prices go up - folks steer away from large SUVs, even though the extra cost of gas would only be about $540 for a vehicle doing "average" mileage. This formed part of a discussion about storch's purchase of a house sized SUV for Mrs. Storch.
-
exactly hang and skuzz...
beet... you are tap dancing badly. You do want the U.S. to raise prices on fuel and you know that it would be a de facto ban on SUV's for all but the richest.
lazs
-
Originally posted by beet1e
The sea levels have risen, Charlotte. Why else would they need to close the flood barrier?
Because they can?
The flood barrier has been in operation since 1982...
In almost 25 years, even with an assumed 1 M / century of sea level rise, the assumption alows a 25cm general rise.
If a measly 25 cm makes the difference instead of high tide (which can be better than 5 meters during the spring and fall eqinoxes (equinii?)) and an added storm surge, then the London flood control system is designed incorrectly.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
beet... you are tap dancing badly. You do want the U.S. to raise prices on fuel and you know that it would be a de facto ban on SUV's for all but the richest.
lazs
No, you are up to your old trick of saying something repeatedly, each time more loudly than the last, in the mistaken belief that one day it will become true. I asked you to C&P a quote, or provide a link. You have done neither.
-
Ok.... so you don't think that the U.S. should raise gas prices and you have never used "huge 10 mpg SUV's" as a reason?
I don't think I need to go through a search of your wall-0-text posts to find that... I think everyone has heard it enough.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Ok.... so you don't think that the U.S. should raise gas prices and you have never used "huge 10 mpg SUV's" as a reason?
I have my own views, without necessarily expressing them on this board, as in the case of US gas prices. I don't think I need to go through a search of your wall-0-text posts to find that... I think everyone has heard it enough.
Translation: Despite the fact that I want to believe you said US gas prices should go up, I can't find any post on this board where you did. So maybe if I pretend that it's buried in your walls of text, people will sympathise me and want to take my side. If I can just get THREE people to agree with me, that will be the cast iron proof that you DID say it - even though I have no proof. For now, I'll just have to go on repeating it in the hope that it will become true.
-
Balh, blah, blah, blah,...blah BLAH!
Man, that poor horse. Must be a bunch of professional carpet dusters aboot. Look at that poor thing. There ain't any hair left on the carcass and they still keep beating it.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Balh, blah, blah, blah,...blah BLAH!
Man, that poor horse. Must be a bunch of professional carpet dusters aboot. Look at that poor thing. There ain't any hair left on the carcass and they still keep beating it.
That's the problem. It's still recognizable. Let the beatings continue!
:)
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Balh, blah, blah, blah,...blah BLAH!
Man, that poor horse. Must be a bunch of professional carpet dusters aboot. Look at that poor thing. There ain't any hair left on the carcass and they still keep beating it.
As a dead horse decays it spews horrendous amounts of CO2.
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the fact that I want to believe you said US gas prices should go up, I can't find any post on this board where you did. So maybe if I pretend that it's buried in your walls of text, people will sympathise me and want to take my side. If I can just get THREE people to agree with me, that will be the cast iron proof that you DID say it - even though I have no proof. For now, I'll just have to go on repeating it in the hope that it will become true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AhHA!
So, finally, we get a window into beets mind... he assumes that Laz's motivation for posting is for sympathy, a hunt for agreement; et al. He thinks Laz wants people to LIKE him!... I know fer a fact that laz couldn't care less what anybody thinks about him.. but the above is sure a sharp clear window into what beets motivations are...
Boy, has he ever been barking the wrong damn tree! ROFL!!
-
HT - you've never met Lazs, have you?
-
Originally posted by beet1e
The sea levels have risen, Charlotte.
Ummmmm...great. thanks for sharing yet another point for proving that things are cycling in a natural fashion. Natural changes have been occuring on earth since recorded history began. I`m sure they will continue to.
Why else would they need to close the flood barrier?
Why else what? You are tripping over your fingers Marie.
(of whose very existence you were unaware until yesterday)
You assume way too much. That`s usualy what sends you on one of these "I assume" tap dancing tours. Give you a hammer and some tacks, sit back and have a cold one and you will nail your own hide to wall given enough slack.
Where is all the extra water coming from?
:rofl See above.
Time for another cup of tea.
Usualy is when you have painted yourself in a corner. :)
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Boy, has he ever been barking the wrong damn tree! ROFL!!
That`s not a tree. It`s an ankle and he ain`t barking at it. :)
-
Originally posted by beet1e
HT - you've never met Lazs, have you?
Lord no. I like my hair where it is. If he was kind to you in person bear in mind most folks don't kick foolish puppies. It's not a christian thing to do. :)
-
Is it too ovious to point out that the sea levels have been rising, although at various rates, since the last ice age ended?
-
Don't clog it up with facts Shuckins, it will only confuse them.
Still have not figured out why this thread exists. It's not like anyone is going to change thier minds, now is it? I hope it is not about learning anything. hehe LOL!!!!
Blahm blah, blah blah,...BLAH!!! blah!! And the mustard does smell!! But only when the wind is pouring tea into the bowling alley!
-
Shuckins, I think so. It's also obvious that this cycle has happened before large populations of man, much less industrialized man got on the globe but that is inconsequential to THIS warming cycle. This one is all man's fault.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Don't clog it up with facts Shuckins, it will only confuse them.
Still have not figured out why this thread exists. It's not like anyone is going to change thier minds, now is it? I hope it is not about learning anything. hehe LOL!!!!
Blahm blah, blah blah,...BLAH!!! blah!! And the mustard does smell!! But only when the wind is pouring tea into the bowling alley!
I was bored. I was amazed. Now I'm bored again. And yup.. it's kinda like a carnival side show with mental masturbation as the blow-off.
(get any on yah? ;))
-
I'm quicker than that Hang. Er, at least to day I am. I guess I was never one for mental masturbation. Seems rather pointless to me.
-
At least I ain't shooting blanks:D
-
s'funny, I could have sworn Charlotte just said something....
... or maybe it was just some hot air.
So Charlotte, now you're saying you knew all about the Thames Barrier before I mentioned it, or am I assuming too much - again?
:D
Yeah, skuzz and shucks. The earth's warming up, the ice is melting, sea levels rising...
... and that 6bn tonnes of CO2 we release each year has got nothing to do with it. :aok
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Yeah, skuzz and shucks. The earth's warming up, the ice is melting, sea levels rising...
... and that 6bn tonnes of CO2 we release each year has got nothing to do with it. :aok
Well, I am certainly glad we got that settled. Now can we move along? :D
I mean, 300+ posts and the same people are saying the same things, over and over again. If it is possible, I think this thread has a scratch in it (only LP album fans will get that one).
-
Yes skuzzy! I'm going for a few beers down in the village with some friends. When I get back, it will be TP time. :cool:
-
Originally posted by beet1e
s'funny, I could have sworn Charlotte just said something....
... or maybe it was just some hot air.
So Charlotte, now you're saying you knew all about the Thames Barrier before I mentioned it, or am I assuming too much - again?
:D
Yeah, skuzz and shucks. The earth's warming up, the ice is melting, sea levels rising...
... and that 6bn tonnes of CO2 we release each year has got nothing to do with it. :aok
Mmmm, didn't I already explain why all the theories about manmade co2 in the atmosphere are so ridiculously full of holes?
Like I said, I don't honestly know the full story about that ice analysis.
Yeah, in fact I did, but you didn't understand it appearently. So, if you don't understand it, obviously it must be a problem. :aok Want to sign my petition for banning Dihydrogen Monoxide? Members of the Sierra Club, PETA, Greenpeace, HGAC have all signed... recently I got a good collection of signatures from ANSWER, Not In Our Name, & Code Pink (stopped at a protest I saw going on). My most spectacular results getting it signed came in '02 at the Rice Environmental Conference. Afterall, it is used in nuclear power plants, by the US navy in some propulsion systems, pesticides, it causes you to sweat excessively, urinate excessively, causes soil erosion, causes severe burns in a gaseous state, and can kill you due to accidental inhilation of even small quantities. The KKK & NAACP have used it in their rallies and marches, in Hilter's death camps, WW2 prison camps, by the Serbs as authorized by Slobodan during their ethnic cleansing campaign... It's so dangerous that the MSDS says you need a labcoat & protective glasses to handle it, and it must be stored in a very tightly sealed container.
For those that missed it, Dihyrogen Monoxide is also known as Dihydrogen Oxide, Hydrogen Hydroxide, Hydronium Hydroxide, or simply Hydric acid. Normally, we just call it water.
Bottomline is, nobody knows the truth, but to say something is a problem with absolutely no way to substantiate it is ... very troll-ish :) I'm a skeptic. I want to be concinved. I demand it. However, posting data that can be debunked in 5 minutes with a google search is the exact opposite of a convincing arguement. If somebody could just get me some data that proves the issue either way, I'll be a happy camper (or a concerned environmentalist).
-
Yep skuzzy... know what a scratch is... I was listening to a radio talk show host and someone called in and said that citizenship was like an "E" ticket.
He had a pretty good point with what he was saying but the host hung up on him and got all shook up about "what the hell is an "E" ticket anyway?"
She asked everyone in the radio control room and none of the 30 somethings had any idea what an "E" ticket was except that it might be an electronic ticket for airlines..
For those who don't know.... Long ago, before you could buy all day pass to an amusement park (and LP's were around).... You bought a book of tickets at Disneyland (there was only one Disneyland)..
In the book were a, b, c, d, and "E" tickets... everything but the "E" tickets let you on the cheezy rides but the "E".... that got you on the big atractions.. If someone went to Disneyland and came back with what was left of his ticket book (they were good forever it seemed) and there was an "E" ticket or 3 left..... well.. that was a prize.
lazs
-
Originally posted by beet1e
So Charlotte, now you're saying you knew all about the Thames Barrier before I mentioned it, or am I assuming too much - again?
Well Marie............I didn`t know ALL about it. Still don`t and neither do you.
I realize Beet, that you consider yourself on a different plane than us mere mortals. I know this may come to a big shock to ya and I hate to be the one to break it to you, but you are not quite as superior to the rest of us as you believe. I would suggest that maybe you could hold a sale for the white robes and come down from the mountain. The bush ain`t gonna burn for you. :rofl
Now, on the other hand, speaking of things I don`t know about. Educate me on the Hackney Marsh and the rejuvenation project. Complete or not? How`s it looking? Did you participate in any way? How much CO2 was released during this project and was it due to any evil U.S. forces?
-
This is way to good to stop now!
Someone said this:
"What Angus charts show is that over the last 140 years the average temperature has risen by .9 degrees celsius.
Jackal's chart shows that the average temperature rose by .5 degree celsius during the twenty year period from 1978 to 1998...then there was an abrupt drop of almost .3 degree celius from 1998 to 1999.
What does it all MEAN!!?? I'm so CONFUSED!!"
Actually the drop relates to a volcanic eruption. I can dig up which one it was if you like.
And Jackal:
"Rut Roh! Missed this one . Sorry.
Vast planting is not going to happen on a scale of which would have even a microscopic difference. Even , in such a fairy tale scenario , if it were done, it would set us back a few hundred years in the process from a CO2 output standpoint. Point A, yaknow"
I agree it's not going to happen in the closest future, although some nations are trying. Why? There are too many administrative people who share most of YOUR opinions.
Point A: It ain't happening.
Point B: There is nothing we CAN do.
Point C: There is nothing we WILL do.
(And Point D: Let's terraform Mars by using greenhouse effects to help increasing the temperature.)
-
Well Charlotte, Hackney is one of the roughest areas in London, and I have never had cause to go there. Remember, I don't live in London anyway, so why some people on this board would tag me as a "city slicker" I do not know!
No, I did not participate in the marsh rejuvenation, or any other activity in Hackney. I might get my hands dirty!
As for WHY I don't visit Hackney, well, it's partly because... "we have everything we need right here!" :rofl
However, I do live close to the River Thames, though mercifully upstream of Hackney. :D
Here's a couple of pics taken in my environs - B@tfink lives near here too...
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/marlow.jpg)
Ah yes, this next one is for when taking a break from one's thirst for learning, as restaurant time does not count! My table is the second from right under the blue awning just above the river surface. I will gladly entertain you (or anyone else who comes over) to a luncheon here, if you promise not to eat with your fingers. We'll need to pre-book because of all the American tourists. ;)
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/houseonthebridge.jpg)
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Hackney is one of the roughest areas in London, and I have never had cause to go there.
Oh I see. Well I just figured with your unquenchable thirst for knowledge that by now you surely would stand with expert status on anything having to do with England. It wasd also my understanding that you didn`t need a "cause" or a reason to go anywhere.
I`m also a little confused on what you mean by "roughest areas in London
". Crime or what is meant by this. You afraid to go there or what?
Are you planning to go to the olympics by any chance?
It was my understanding that the marshes were open areas and recreational places. I don`t know. Just going by what I read. I also understood that facilities for the olympics would be in the marhses areas.
Maybe you can clear a few things up for me concerning this......................... .....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The immediate impact is that Arena Field will soon be lost to Olympics precinct- a high fence and road for heavy vehicles moving contaminated soil will run close to Lee Navigation. Businesses, bus garages, travellers site and Church along Waterden Road will be moved as area is turned into a massive building site. Open land and allotments on east bank of River Lea will be turned into sports venues. White Hart Field (open space between A12 and Ruckholt Road) and a large chunk of East Marsh (both Common Land and Metropolitan Open Space) and trees along Ruckholt Road will soon be lost under a huge land bridge. In spite of questions asked through GLA member, London 2012 have given no information about what land will be provided as exchange land for the loss of this Common Land. Walk on September 4th walk will go round these areas soon to be lost as public open space."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What`s the soil contaminated with?
I`m also wondering if anyone is protesting this undertaking?
A lot of CO2 is gonna be released appears to me. :)
-
Originally posted by Angus
Jackal's chart shows that the average temperature rose by .5 degree celsius during the twenty year period from 1978 to 1998...then there was an abrupt drop of almost .3 degree celius from 1998 to 1999.
What does it all MEAN!!?? I'm so CONFUSED!!"
Actually the drop relates to a volcanic eruption. I can dig up which one it was if you like.
Hmmmmmm.........volcanic eruptions and other forces of nature having an effect on global temperatures and weather patterns. Sort of like it`s been doing since the beginning of recorded history, huh? :)
I agree it's not going to happen in the closest future, although some nations are trying. Why? There are too many administrative people who share most of YOUR opinions.
Point A: It ain't happening.
Point B: There is nothing we CAN do.
Point C: There is nothing we WILL do.
Yes, there are still quite a few folks left that live in reality.
One by one.
(Point A) Nothing to prove otherwise.
(Point B) I would add there is nothing we CAN do without setting back the intended effect by a few hundred years, thus defeating the purpose.
(Point C) Nothing we WILL do collectivly. You can read that as worldwide.
-
Well Jack - I'm flattered that you would ask my personal opinion about Hackney and its environs, but as I said, I've never had cause to go there. Yes it's rough with regard to crime, but hey - you can find out all you want if you visit the London Borough of Hackney website: http://www.hackney.gov.uk/
I'm not planning to attend any Olympic Games event.
I had a look at some maps and it turns out I used to work within about 2 miles of Hackney, near the old Spittalfields Market. The new Spittalfields Market is at Hackney Marsh. So yes, I was in that general area without realising it.
That's all I've time for now - I have a visitor. ;)
-
beet.... you do realize that the true doom and gloom environmentalist feels (demands) that we abandon the concept of private property and all live in hiv... er, "cities" packed in to conserve energy and resources?
lazs
-
Oh yeah? Can I solve that by driving a 12mpg gas guzzler?
-
Hmmmmmmmmm..............so England decided to put the olympics in the "roughest" part of London. I beleive that`s what you said. High crime rate, etc.
The Hackney Marhses , which I understand to be one of the largest open/recreation areas is high in crime and "rough" I guess. (Whatever that means).....................and this is where their putting the olympics facilities. Hmmmmmm.............interesti ng.
So, you don`t have any idea what the soil is contaminated with I asked about?
I find it strange that you are an INSTAspert on Texas, the U.S., Qatar... heck all the way through S.E. Asia......................... ...but know almost nothing on things so close to you in Merry Old England. Don`t much set well with your "Been there"policy.:rofl
Oh well. If the Hackney Marshes are so "rough" and the crime level is so high there, maybe the games should just be canceled . Save all the hub bub and wouldn`t release all that pesky CO2 into the atmosphere. The folks in England being so ever concerned about this issue and all.......................... ...............
But wheeew, I really like the name Hackney Marshes. Has a nice ring to it. :)
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Oh yeah? Can I solve that by driving a 12mpg gas guzzler?
You planning on buying a Land Rover Discovery? (12C/16H)
You can acheive 11/18 with a A/M DB9... but that is only for rich people.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Hmmmmmmmmm..............so England decided to put the olympics in the "roughest" part of London. I beleive that`s what you said. High crime rate, etc.
You been to the LA Coliseum?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
You can acheive 11/18 with a A/M DB9... but that is only for rich people.
HMcG - see that first pic I posted today. That town is Marlow and I was there today, where I saw not one but two DB9s! Beautiful cars, pity about the gas mileage.
Charlotte. I don't know why you're asking me all these questions about Hackney Marsh. You have heard of Google, haven't you? It's a search engine, and is very easy to use, hence it is well suited to your needs. I've already given you the London Borough of Hackney website. There's plenty of info on Hackney in there. As for the environmental considerations of Hackney Marsh, and the plans to use that site for the Olympics, go here: http://www.clubplan.org/CMS/page.asp?org=2673&id=385 Land remediation- moving and cleaning up polluted soil. 1,850,000 cubic metres of soil will be processed. 1,330,000 cubic metres of this soil is polluted with cadium, chromium, mercury, nickel, selenium, lead and naphthalene and requires cleaning up by washing, sorting or bioremediation.
And now, if you would click here (http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=536500&y=186500&z=6&sv=536500,186500&st=4&ar=Y&mapp=newmap.srf&searchp=newsearch.srf&ax=536500&ay=186500), you'll get a nice big map of London, with an arrow near the middle pointing at Hackney Marsh area. I would imagine it's been chosen for the site because of being close to central London and therefore not far to travel for those staying at central London hotels.
Don't be afraid to use http://www.google.co.uk - I'm sure your.... "dial-up" connection can handle it! LOL - and you won't have to wait quite so long as waiting for a reply from me! :rofl
-
Oh, goodness, where is this heaing. To the crime rate and pollution of The Hackney Marhses....?
I doubt that The Hackney Marhses match the US in the rate of capital crime, but maybe that's just me...
Oh, I saw an accusation of me showing selective data about the globe warming. Well, belive what you want, but there is no selectiveness when I look at the nearest glacier(s) out of my kitchen window. They're shrinking allright, and to top it, we haven't had a properly nasty winter for 15 years.
So, since I live in Iceland, I should actually embrace a little warming. And I live 120 feet above sea level too! And why worry about Amreegans and such, they can just roast and flood and get twisted, while I can start growing wheat!
-
I live near a glacier.
I fly over it all the time.
It gets bigger & bigger.
Been doing this a long time, too.
Was nearly nothing 25 years ago, they say.
I've only been seeing it for 5 years.
-
Woot?
I actually do live near to a glacier. Not kidding!
-
Me too.
I gave good hints.
Bet you can guess mine if you try.
-
beet... drive a 12 mpg car or not.... none of my business and won't affect things one way or the other...
If everyone did tho then.... before very long.... something would get done instead of a lot of useless time spent on trying to get the last mpg out of internal combustion engines that run on fossil fuels.
Like I say... I think that your environmentalism is based on wanting to feel superior and on wanting to tell other people what to do.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Like I say... I think that your environmentalism is based on wanting to feel superior and on wanting to tell other people what to do.
I think your memory deceives you. I haven't told anyone what to do, except perhaps to you in this thread ^ when I said "Same goes for you – go on with your 8mpg hot-rodding. The CO2 reduction were you to stop would register as a blippette on the world chart." And... neither have I suggested that a tax be levied on SUVs. And... nowhere did I say that SUVs should be banned. And... neither have I made a proposal for an increase oin the price of fuel to discourage waste. Try to focus on what I've actually said, rather than what you think I said, or what you wish I'd said. If you're so sure that I have indeed made such statements, then it should be no trouble at all for you to find where I did say it. In which case you should post a link. I asked you to do this several days ago, and I'm still waiting.
I have however observed that a modest increase in annual running costs caused by post Katrina oil prices was enough to cause people to avoid large SUVs in droves. Actually it wasn't me, it was Storch.
In other parts of the world, the tax structures are different such that road fuel costs a lot more than it does in the US, and this is one reason why there is a much higher demand for fuel efficient vehicles outside the US.
-
soooo..... your suggestion is to do nothing except ***** about other peoples habits? Even tho you don't think they should change?
lazs
-
Have I ******* about other people's habits? Still no link I see...
-
George Will has a nice column this week-- though he is certainly a conservative, no one has ever accused him of runing roughshod with facts:
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will1.asp
Let cooler heads prevail: The media heat up over global warming
http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com | So, "the debate is over." Time magazine says so. Last week's cover story exhorted readers to "Be Worried. Be Very Worried," and ABC News concurred in several stories. So did Montana's governor, speaking on ABC. And there was polling about global warming, gathered by Time and ABC in collaboration.
Eighty-five percent of Americans say warming is probably happening, and 62 percent say it threatens them personally. The National Academy of Sciences says the rise in the Earth's surface temperature has been about one degree Fahrenheit in the past century. Did 85 percent of Americans notice? Of course not. They got their anxiety from journalism calculated to produce it. Never mind that one degree might be the margin of error when measuring the planet's temperature. To take a person's temperature, you put a thermometer in an orifice or under an arm. Taking the temperature of our churning planet, with its tectonic plates sliding around over a molten core, involves limited precision.
Why have Americans been dilatory about becoming as worried — as very worried — as Time and ABC think proper? An article on ABC's Web site wonders ominously, "Was Confusion Over Global Warming a Con Job?"
It suggests there has been a misinformation campaign implying that scientists might not be unanimous, a campaign by — how did you guess? — big oil. And the coal industry. But speaking of coal . . .
Recently, Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer flew with ABC's George Stephanopoulos over Glacier National Park's receding glaciers. But Schweitzer offered hope: Everyone, buy Montana coal. New technologies can, he said, burn it while removing carbon causes of global warming.
Stephanopoulos noted that such technologies are at least four years away and "all the scientists" say something must be done "right now." Schweitzer, quickly recovering from hopefulness and returning to the "be worried, be very worried" message, said "it's even more critical than that" because China and India are going to "put more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere with conventional coal-fired generators than all of the rest of the planet has during the last 150 years."
That is one reason why the Clinton administration never submitted the Kyoto accord on global warming for Senate ratification. In 1997 the Senate voted 95 to 0 that the accord would disproportionately burden America while being too permissive toward major polluters that are America's trade competitors.
While worrying about Montana's receding glaciers, Schweitzer, who is 50, should also worry about the fact that when he was 20 he was told to be worried, very worried, about global cooling. Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation." Science Digest (February 1973) reported that "the world's climatologists are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age." The Christian Science Monitor ("Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster Than Even Experts Expect," Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers "have begun to advance," "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter" and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool." Newsweek agreed ("The Cooling World," April 28, 1975) that meteorologists "are almost unanimous" that catastrophic famines might result from the global cooling that the New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said "may mark the return to another ice age." The Times (May 21, 1975) also said "a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable" now that it is "well established" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950."
In fact, the Earth is always experiencing either warming or cooling. But suppose the scientists and their journalistic conduits, who today say they were so spectacularly wrong so recently, are now correct. Suppose the Earth is warming and suppose the warming is caused by human activity. Are we sure there will be proportionate benefits from whatever climate change can be purchased at the cost of slowing economic growth and spending trillions? Are we sure the consequences of climate change — remember, a thick sheet of ice once covered the Midwest — must be bad? Or has the science-journalism complex decided that debate about these questions, too, is "over"?
About the mystery that vexes ABC — Why have Americans been slow to get in lock step concerning global warming? — perhaps the "problem" is not big oil or big coal, both of which have discovered there is big money to be made from tax breaks and other subsidies justified in the name of combating carbon.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
I don't know why you're asking me all these questions about Hackney Marsh. /B]
I know you don`t. :D
If you don`t wish to answer any questions, you don`t have to.
Sure got a nice ring to it .
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Angus
while I can start growing wheat!
Good luck with that.
We fattened up quite a few Russian`s for quite a few years doing that. :D
What variety does well where you are at?
-
Debonair:
"I live near a glacier.
I fly over it all the time.
It gets bigger & bigger.
Been doing this a long time, too.
Was nearly nothing 25 years ago, they say.
I've only been seeing it for 5 years."
What glacier???
In the dark here. The only thing for sure is that it isn't one of the biggest ones on the Northern hemisphere.
The Greenland glacier is shrinking, so are all the ones in Iceland. That rules out Europe for anything significant, although some patches in the Alps may be growing (more precipation).
So, the guess is that it's not a big one....
-
Charlotte - how are you going with that Google? :p
-
the end is near, the end is very near......
the end is....*%!$*
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Charlotte - how are you going with that Google? :p
Don`t use google Marie. Don`t need it for this especialy. :D
How are you doing with it? :rofl
-
Originally posted by Charlotte
How are you doing with it? :rofl
Well, I found Hackney Marsh. :aok
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Well, I found Hackney Marsh. :aok
That`s a start.
Well done. :)
-
While you're all debating whether there is a problem, this guy already has a solution;
http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_2006/2006-04-07/feature1p/index.html
-
Originally posted by AWMac
Yeah...what Skuzzy said!!!
It's NOT like this is gonna happen in "2 weeks"....
:D
Mac
Don't be so sure.
It depends on who's '2-weeks' we're talking about! :D
-
It's the Mt. St. Helens glacier.
"Name This" is better with 'planes...
-
St.Helens the volcano????
(Nasty one....Mt Katla is 90 km away from me, and although not as nasty as they get, she's a nasty one yet. From eruption untill I might to face a floodwawe equalling twice the Amazone close to it's max (200.000 kubic metres pro second) I have four hours to get the hell out!
(The magma tank opens under a good bit of area with a 2000 feet thickness of ice)
Anyway, St. Helens, if I have the right one in mind, should easily be able to be chucking up a little icecap, even as the globe is getting warmer.
In the meantime, those humble glaciers on the poles and nearabouts are retreating. And compared to those, your's is just a pebble.
-
dont be a glacier hater
-
I don't like glaciers.
But I'd rather have some than live underwater ;)
-
Read this and it got me to wondering.
Hmmmmm........ I wonder how the modern Egyptian woman is at building aquaducts. :rofl
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At first glance, men seem to hold all the jobs in the crowded city of Cairo: They drive taxis, direct traffic, and iron clothing in steamy laundry shops. But behind the scenes, a quiet revolution is taking place.
ADVERTISEMENT
[-93755]
Record numbers of Egyptian women are holding jobs, and the variety of careers open to them is rising. Women serve as bank CEOs, newspaper editors, university deans, and government ministers. One has been appointed a judge.
In 1996, 18 percent of Egyptian women worked outside the home. By 2004, 31 percent did, according to a
United Nations report. Although there is no single explanation for the increase, experts do see some trends.
Relatively affluent women are marrying later than their mothers did, giving them an additional decade in the working world, says Hania Sholkamy, a professor at the American University of Cairo. Some university departments, such as medicine and humanities, now graduate as many women as men.
But most Egyptian women take jobs "in an effort to escape the cycle of poverty," Ms. Sholkamy says.
Forty-five percent of the country's women are illiterate, which limits their opportunities to low-wage labor. Still, working helps women raise their status at home. Ikram Hasem Hadifa, for example, sells fish to help her husband support their seven children. "We're no longer as we were in the old days, when women just sat at home and had nothing to do," she says. "Whoever can work can change her life."
phthalmologist
Ms. Khater grew up around doctors, including her father and many family friends. So her career choice came easily. After finishing medical school in Cairo, she traveled to the United States to complete a fellowship at the University of Texas.
"Getting ahead in medicine really depends on how clever you are, not your gender," she says. "Some women are achieving so much, but others in society - the conservative religious forces - want to put women back a million years."
-
Don't be embarrassed to admit that your quoted text comes from the Christian Science Monitor: http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0331/p18s02-hfes.html
:D
-
well then.... we did get one thing settled...
none of the doom and gloomers have a solution or can tell us how much man is responsible for the 1 (that's one) degree (maybe) increasein temp that we have seen in the last century.
None of them seem to care that we have averted the global ice age that was predicted for about now back in '76 by pretty much the same group of scientists.
we now know that beetle has no solution nor even cares how much or little anyone does (especialy himself) about global warming. He pretty much says that he has no ideas and is happy with the way the U.S. is doing it.
So why are we even talking about it?
Only zorch has pointed to a viable solution and only one citizen scientist backs him (lets hope the guys name isn't lex luther).
Sooo... I'm happy with the whole do nothing idea and....
Thanks for the thread chicken little guys.... was entertaining.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
we now know that beetle has no solution nor even cares how much or little anyone does (especialy himself) about global warming. He pretty much says that he has no ideas and is happy with the way the U.S. is doing it.
Lazs, you're a doofus. :p
No ONE person can solve an issue of such magnitude, not even W. If that were possible or feasible, it would have happened by now.
My most optimistic prognosis is that oil will run out in about 25 years forcing us to change our habits, or that what oil remains by then will be so expensive to extract that development of a nuclear programme becomes economically viable. One hopes that technology to deal with the waste will also become more advanced. As I've said before, there is one factor, and one factor only, which has the power to make us change our ways: Cost.
-
ahhh... so your solution is to.....
hope..
I can do that. Thanks for the help.
lazs
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Don't be embarrassed to admit that your quoted text comes from the Christian Science Monitor: http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0331/p18s02-hfes.html
:D
Actualy the story was on this morning`s Yahoo news, but if I had gotten it from the Christian Science Monitor I certainly wouldn`t be embarrassed.
You`ve got some really screwed up ways at looking at things.
This one should be good with a shovel. :)
"Ms. Mansour, 19, began weight-lifting training at age 10 in the coastal city of Alexandria. At first, people made fun of her for developing muscles, but "they got used to it," she says. She is now on the Egyptian national team and ranked sixth in the world in her age group and weight class."
-
Originally posted by lazs2
ahhh... so your solution is to.....
hope..
I can do that. Thanks for the help.
lazs
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't force it to drink.
-
I think I heard em say on news last night that it was coldest March on record in bay area. Good thing for global warming or it would have been really cold!!!
-
Nuclear power is already economically feasable. It is just not politically feasable due to the efforts of the "greenie" folks. Don't ya know that noooclear power is bad?????? We'll all start having 3 headed kids and all the crops will wither and die!!! It's "love canal" and chernobyl and we're all gonna DIE!!!!!!! THAT'S A FATE WORSER THAN GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :noid
-
ALBEDO
-
From a guy with a lunar 'tard, thats stunningly strong hypocracy
-
Moondust might be it as well.
Now what's it called? H3? Anyway, not available in any quantity on earth.
And nuclear power? Quite clean.
And the Egyptians? Advancing into the desert, planting and planting. Good thing.
-
Anyway, here's a nice thing for you:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4315968.stm
-
An interesting publication from Kenneth F. Drinkwater,
Institute of Marine Research and Bjerknes Center for Climate Research, P.O. Box 1870 Nordnes, N-5817 Bergen, Norway
Abstract
During the 1920s and 1930s, there was a dramatic warming of the northern North Atlantic Ocean. Warmer-than-normal sea temperatures, reduced sea ice conditions and enhanced Atlantic inflow in northern regions continued through to the 1950s and 1960s, with the timing of the decline to colder temperatures varying with location. Ecosystem changes associated with the warm period included a general northward movement of fish. Boreal species of fish such as cod, haddock and herring expanded farther north while colder-water species such as capelin and polar cod retreated northward. The maximum recorded movement involved cod, which spread approximately 1200 km northward along West Greenland. Migration patterns of “warmer water” species also changed with earlier arrivals and later departures. New spawning sites were observed farther north for several species or stocks while for others the relative contribution from northern spawning sites increased. Some southern species of fish that were unknown in northern areas prior to the warming event became occasional, and in some cases, frequent visitors. Higher recruitment and growth led to increased biomass of important commercial species such as cod and herring in many regions of the northern North Atlantic. Benthos associated with Atlantic waters spread northward off Western Svalbard and eastward into the eastern Barents Sea. Based on increased phytoplankton and zooplankton production in several areas, it is argued that bottom-up processes were the primary cause of these changes. The warming in the 1920s and 1930s is considered to constitute the most significant regime shift experienced in the North Atlantic in the 20th century.
Link (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V7B-4JKJSXC-3&_coverDate=03%2F29%2F2006&_alid=384194075&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi=5838&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000043031&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=777686&md5=f955c79454456473285e0bf38a19b1fa#SECX9)
-
Originally posted by Angus
And nuclear power? Quite clean.
Nuclear waste, not so clean.........for a long, long, long time.
And the Egyptians? Advancing into the desert, planting and planting. Good thing. [/B]
[/QUOTE]
Hehe. Yep, we got to get them Egyptians hopping. :)
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Nuclear waste, not so clean.........for a long, long, long time.
Oh bugger. I have to agree with Charlotte. :o Yes there are problems. I don't know whether it is within man's capability to develop technology to accelerate the decomposition of nuclear waste into harmless non radioactive isotopes. After Chernobyl & TMI, it would be a shame to lose the nuclear opportunity, but clearly it's going to be difficult to sell.
But perhaps less difficult if people living 50 miles inland had seawater lapping at their front doors...
-
We should all use as much gas as we can. Well at least until England sinks under the sea.
Then we would at least be rid of the biggest troll on the board and the world that he likes to inflict himself on would be happy.
:D :aok :rofl
-
Anybody investing in oceanfront property in Port Salt Lake, Utah, yet?
-
Originally posted by beet1e
But perhaps less difficult if people living 50 miles inland had seawater lapping at their front doors...
I think it would be technically (and perhaps semantically) impossible to be 50 miles inland and yet have the sea lapping at your front door.
-
Raise the sea level some 100 feet and behold: vast areas of land will disappear. Including most or much of:
Holland, Denmark, Israel (?), ooops... Florida....now going to cities, the best parts of most of the world's harbour cities. NY!, Singapore,Rotterdam, maybe even Hambrg, Hong-Kong......and wheere is London???
100 feet....just that.
-
So if the sea level rises 1 mile... the sea would be lapping at the door of the Colorado state capital... thus 50 miles inland would no longer be in Louisiana or Texas, it would be 50 miles inland from Denver.
Hence 50 miles inland can never be inundated by the sea. (Barring an occasional super tsunami.)
-
I've intentionally not responded to your tantrum for solutions, lazs. ;)
The reasons are simple:
1. You don't accept what the scientists are saying unanimously (statistically). The results are in from the call for another decade of data and improved modeling ten years ago. Our course for the next 20 years can't be stopped due to the momemtum of cumulative heating from captured CO2 that was less understood then, and from wind trends that are changing monsoon and tropical storm patterns due to particulate matter in the temperate zone blocking the normal cyclical north-south transitions. The natural cleansing patterns of the atmosphere has been disrupted.
2. Science does advance in knowledge. Saying that our industrial emissions have no effect on climate or nature at this point in time is akin to denying Earth revolves around the sun. Parroting George Will and his layman logic that a single magazine article written 30 years ago (that improperly drew a conclusion) about an ice age is evidence that all the scientists are wrong today is silly.
---------------
Nothing we do now is going to change what we'll see 20 years from now. The question is what broad changes society will have to make to affect what happens after that.
I think you just enjoy being contrary to anything beet1e says. It isn't me writing the peer-reviewed papers. And you haven't read any, have you? And that is the rub.
Did you know that many scientists are downplaying their comments because they don't think the public can handle what the modeling is now showing? They don't want to say it, but the next 20-30 years will be the biggest challenge we have faced as a species.
The most succinct statement is that you only have to be concerned about it if you want to eat. The impact of these changes is less about rising sea levels and more about droughts.
Water changes state at definite pressures and temperatures, and the effect you see happens very quickly. The events of an avalanche happens very quickly. Engines run fine while losing oil, but things go to hell in a handbasket very quickly when the oil is gone.
That is what happens with tipping points. You're driving down the road whistling that everything is fine, but the oil is leaking. Are you going to just take your chances and drive it until it seizes, or stop before you destroy the engine?
-
LAzs I think what Rolex is saying is taht we should stock up on ammo, and soon. :)
Rolex, can you post a few links to these doom and gloom scenarious. I'm 25yrs old so if true I'm quite curious.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
That is what happens with tipping points. You're driving down the road whistling that everything is fine, but the oil is leaking. Are you going to just take your chances and drive it until it seizes, or stop before you destroy the engine?
The problem is that no one knows where the tipping point is. Is is close to 350 ppm? No one one earth can honestly tell you.
We measure CO2 levels against a baseline of 280 ppm, about that which is thought to have existed before we began burning coal.
But before the industrial revolution our ability to directly measure CO2 levels was primative at best. According to Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski in testimony before the US Senate, measurements taken during the 19th century ranged from 225 to 550 ppm.
The most accepted modern method of meauring ancient levels is in ice cores but Dr ZJ says ice core measurements have varied from 160 to 700 ppm. CO2 is not completely sequestered in the bubbles frozen in the ice... chemical reactions, although slowed by temperature, continue and measurements become more unreliable the older the bubble.
If the 550 or 700 measurements are correct then we are not close to the tipping point and we could burn all the rest of the oil without problem.
The whole global warming thing is of science being unsure, and saying we shoul err on the side of caution, because we do not know.
-
Originally posted by Debonair
From a guy with a lunar 'tard, thats stunningly strong hypocracy
How so?
-
Anybody else think it's hot in here?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
How so?
The moon is lacking in albedo.
It was a joke.
Was it? I though jokes were funny...
Yeah, I guess it wasn't, but at least now I know what color "burlywood" is.
with a name like "burlywood" i didn't expect such a girly color.