Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: john9001 on June 05, 2006, 09:18:43 AM
-
NASA satellites check the ocean temps to help predict hurricanes, they show the temp of the Atlantic is cooler this year than last year at this time.
I wonder if al (the world is ending) gore knows about this?
-
IT'S MANBEARPIG!!!
-
Originally posted by john9001
NASA satellites check the ocean temps to help predict hurricanes, they show the temp of the Atlantic is cooler this year than last year at this time.
I wonder if al (the world is ending) gore knows about this?
Link?
-
Originally posted by john9001
NASA satellites check the ocean temps to help predict hurricanes, they show the temp of the Atlantic is cooler this year than last year at this time.
I wonder if al (the world is ending) gore knows about this?
Really, what politics has to do with climate?
It's really not difficult to have lower temperatues this year, since last year was a record year, according to NASA, the warmest in the last 2000 years, probably last 10,000. Also in term of ocean temperatures, last year was extraordinary.
Besides, long term global averages is what counts when it comes to climate changes.
Anyways, nice cherry pick there, John.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Link?
link (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GWYA,GWYA:2006-07,GWYA:en&q=average+global+temperatures)
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
IT'S MANBEARPIG!!!
"I'm super serious guys..."
-
Originally posted by 2bighorn
Really, what politics has to do with climate?
What cave you been livin in?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
What cave you been livin in?
You're right, I should have asked what climate has to do with politics, instead of other way around...
-
No, climate science is a big driving force in politics, and politics is a huge driver in climate science. They tend to drive each other.
One must be extremely careful and wade through a tremendous amount of opinion in climate science to find the science. Many so called scientists tend to look for the data that supports their thesis and look no further. Then the politician take these thesis' as proven fact and look no further.
-
ya Atlantic maybe .... I've heard the Gulf is quite warm this year though.
I mean take alook around you ..... do you think all the crap we throw into the air does nothing? Diffusion is intresting .. but inescapeable. And osmosis can kill you.
Ya, but don't worry.... you've got nothing to fear but terrorists (rollseyes)
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
No, climate science is a big driving force in politics, and politics is a huge driver in climate science. They tend to drive each other.
I meant "the Climate" and not any particular science...
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
One must be extremely careful and wade through a tremendous amount of opinion in climate science to find the science. Many so called scientists tend to look for the data that supports their thesis and look no further. Then the politician take these thesis' as proven fact and look no further.
I'm maintaning two RAWS (Remote Automated Weather Stations). One is up since 1994. Data collected shows temperatures well above 50 years average and is pretty much in agreement with trends worldwide.
The surface air temperatures are rising ie there's significant warming.
Locally, we had records temps for the last 6-7 years, this spring was about 10 degrees warmer than average, and there are no signs that trend will somehow reverse.
The answers about what it means for the world in near or long term future and what is the cause of warming, is up to science to find, and I'm really sick and tired of people telling me it's a normal cycle or it's armagedon in making, polution is the cause, polution ain't the cause, or even telling me the world is cooling off.
All I know is that it affects me NOW in terms of increased energy needs/costs (measured in KWh not $$) and decreased levels of comfort during summer months.
How the climate is used for political retorhic is another matter and in the near term it won't help me cool off either.
-
The best rule of thumb is to learn how to catagory hurricanes in the PC (politically correct) method.
1.No hurricanes existed and especially catagory 4 or 5 before 1970.
2. Any hurricane that hits land in the continental US is the fault of George
Bush.
3.Any hurricane that does not hit the continental US but meanders around and dies out or hits the Mexican coast line is Global Warming neutral. However it has become fashonable to blame it on Bush anyway.
4. The Holy Grail of PC hurricanes is, of course, Katrina. Although it was only a cat 3 always refer to it as a cat 5. While the major damage wasn't due to the hurricane but rather to the fact that New Orleans sets well below sea level with dubious protection from a weak levy system never bring that up. Always claim it was caused by George Bush waving his majic oil can over the Gulf.
5. If no major hurricanes hit the continental mainland this year credit it to the low poll numbers George Bush has.
-
If GWB was God, would his poll numbers be this low?
-
The last ten of fourteen years on this planet have been the hottest ever recoreded..The hottest being last year.
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
The last ten of fourteen years on this planet have been the hottest ever recoreded..The hottest being last year.
And when did we offically begin keeping historic weather records? The past 80 years? Compare that to the planet, which is more than a billion years old....
-
Damnit...quite using logic again Rip!
-
Weaselsan - it's fine to joke about it at your time of life. The effects of man-made CO2 output won't be felt for another 30-40 years, by which time we will both be dead.
So joke on! :aok :cool:
-
Originally posted by Makarov9
Damnit...quite using logic again Rip!
Hehe!
Well, to be honest, I think the earth is going through a global warming phase, like it probably has 10,000 other times in its history...but to think humans are the sole contributers to global warming is arrogance at its finest. Sure we contribute, but even if we didn't it would still happen.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
And when did we offically begin keeping historic weather records? The past 80 years? Compare that to the planet, which is more than a billion years old....
Apparently it is known that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere are at their highest in 650,000 years. Which is rather more than 80 years....
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Apparently it is known that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere are at their highest in 650,000 years. Which is rather more than 80 years....
Just ask any 649,999 year old scientist. He's got the proof.
-
buster poindexter was a %#&#!*%$ libral!!
-
Hehe.
Last year was one of the mildest summers we have ever had here in the Dallas area. Plenty of rain and only a couple of 100+F degrees days. First time in the 25+ years I have lived here I did not need to water the lawn to keep it from dieing. It stayed a pretty green all summer.
This year however, we are already in water-rationing and temperatures in the high 90's. No rain in site. The yard is dieing. Lost one tree so far.
So, it looks like we are in for a normal Texas summer this year. About time, as the last 5 or 6 years have all been very mild.
It is silly to think we can stop what has been started. Momma Earth dunt work like that.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
Just ask any 649,999 year old scientist. He's got the proof.
Yeah, you're right. How old is the oldest scientist - 70 years? So we only know the history of the earth going back to 1936.
:rofl
-
Good lord...it seems that the conservative right is so darn sure that everyone is somehow blaming them (and/or Bush) for global warming that it is "hip" in a kinda good old boy way to deny it is happening. It is just "a natural cycle". lol
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Last year was one of the mildest summers we have ever had here in the Dallas area. Plenty of rain and only a couple of 100+F degrees days. First time in the 25+ years I have lived here I did not need to water the lawn to keep it from dieing. It stayed a pretty green all summer.
That's what I'm hoping for here for the next year.
Originally posted by Skuzzy
It is silly to think we can stop what has been started. Momma Earth dunt work like that.
Exactly!
Originally posted by weaselsan
Just ask any 649,999 year old scientist. He's got the proof.
Why don't you ask some religious zealot here for a 2000 year old priest to prove Jesus existed.
-
Originally posted by 2bighorn
Why don't you ask some religious zealot here for a 2000 year old priest to prove Jesus existed.
:aok:cool:
-
Proof of global warming:
(http://pic4.picturetrail.com/VOL767/2726312/8668097/153308151.jpg)
-
Bush speaks about Global Warming:
http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=17582
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Proof of global warming:
:rofl
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
The last ten of fourteen years on this planet have been the hottest ever recoreded..The hottest being last year.
provide link please....
-
lol Rip...that was clever.
:aok
Seriously though, you honestly believe that global warming, or some kind of negative human effect on the earth's environment is not happening? You put it all down to mother earth correcting itself in a cylical way?
I'm no scientist and I don't claim to have a link to any sort of proof of its existance but denying that we humans are doing a bunch of environmental damage is burying your head in the sand.
We take naturally occuring substances and turn them into poisons of every imaginable kind. We produce tonnes upon tonnes of waste chemicals from factories and refineries. We drive cars that belch caron monoxide into the air, millions upon millions of them. I just don't believe that there are no ill effects, or that those effects are not hazardous. They HAVE to be.
I realise that there is politics involved, and not just democrat vs republican stuff....it's a global thing. Environmentalism has become a trillion dollar "industry" in and of itself. Big money = politics = corruption. Every time.
Personally I don't hug trees and I am as guilty as anyone with respect to poluting. I just don't try and deny it.
-
See Rule #5
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
And when did we offically begin keeping historic weather records? The past 80 years? Compare that to the planet, which is more than a billion years old....
Well according to the Bible and religious types..The planet is only a few thousand years old.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
provide link please....
Al Gore's movie.
:D
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
Well according to the Bible and religious types..The planet is only a few thousand years old.
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/lmao.gif)
-
whats wrong with global warming? algore says the oceans will rise 20 feet, is that bad? only for the people that own million dollar water front property and the makers of winter coats and BIG OIL ( heating oil ).
i see only good things from global warming, lower heating costs,people will not have to fly south for the winter (saving airline fuel), the boating season in the north will be from feb to oct, growing season will be longer( more work for illegals)and food for us, the snow skiers will have to learn to water ski.
BTW the "link" was on the front page of one of the pittsburgh, pa news papers.
-
What does this mean exactly?
(http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/images/icecoredepth.GIF)
From here: http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/globalwarmA.html
-
I guess I shouldnt trust the 2006 farmers almanac. It says we are do for a mild and wet summer this year.
What is dem dare farmers smokin?
-
Originally posted by lukster
What does this mean exactly?
(http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/images/icecoredepth.GIF)
From here: http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/globalwarmA.html
From your website, global tempertures were as warm in 1878 as they were in 1995. Guess it was all the diesel and gasoline, eh?
http://chemistry.beloit.edu/Warming/moviepages/global.htm
-
Actually that was from one of the links weaselsan posted. If I'm reading it right there has been a warming trend for the last 160,000 years.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Actually that was from one of the links weaselsan posted. If I'm reading it right there has been a warming trend for the last 160,000 years.
Agreed...and if fossil fuels have only been around for 100 years (and in heavy-use quantity for 60 years) that shows that the trend would have been global warming with or without man.
Maybe Curval can now undertand, the planet is a very large one, and mother nature creates her own global warming, with or without us.
-
its all bush's fault :noid
-
Originally posted by lukster
What does this mean exactly?
(http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/images/icecoredepth.GIF)
From here: http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/globalwarmA.html
like all other data, it means whatever your favorite political party says it does
-
Recently read an article about global warming.
It stated that if the earth was following it's pattern, we should be having a slight ice age now. But due to human interference, notably centuries of agriculture (rice) in the east, and then the modern days, we are just warming up :D
So, in short, this is not the natural pattern.
-
See Rule #4
-
Originally posted by john9001
NASA satellites check the ocean temps to help predict hurricanes, they show the temp of the Atlantic is cooler this year than last year at this time.
I wonder if al (the world is ending) gore knows about this?
I heard that in the southern part of Moldova the temperature have not been so low since about 1 full year !
Ever heard of : (http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/2/1/a/21a3e8a3a9291e84e2a2cce5fc91d297.png)
?
-
I am not a scientist as already stated but those graphs are ludicrous examples of proof that global warming is a natural thing. Carry on burying your heads.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
If GWB was God, would his poll numbers be this low?
If he had'nt alienated GOP conservatives, his numbers COULDN'T get below 40's:mad:
-
Just read another article.
It's not just the Icecaps melting and oceans warming (icecaps melting actually chill the water like an icecube in the whisky,-temporarily), - nope.
The deserts are warming too!
-
Originally posted by Angus
Just read another article.
It's not just the Icecaps melting and oceans warming (icecaps melting actually chill the water like an icecube in the whisky,-temporarily), - nope.
The deserts are warming too!
I don't think you'll find too many that disagree. What we disagree on is how much of this is a naturally occuring cycle, and to what degree humans have an impact on it. I stand on my statement that anyone that thinks humans are the major impact on global warming are arrogant. Higher thinking sometimes leads to egotistical thinking as well.
-
Originally posted by Curval
I am not a scientist as already stated but those graphs are ludicrous examples of proof that global warming is a natural thing.
Same could be said about the so called proof against it being natural.
Let's see...no one doubts it has happened before but for some reason now it is mainly because of man.
Originally posted by Curval
Carry on burying your heads.
Ok Ok give me a second...........
I know!!
Keep on telling us the sky is falling!
:aok
-
Originally posted by Curval
I am not a scientist as already stated but those graphs are ludicrous examples of proof that global warming is a natural thing. Carry on burying your heads.
Why are they ludicrous?
-
curval... it is not "hip" to deny that it is happening... it is probably happening... It is just that most people that have any brains at all deny that we are the cause of it. Or... that we can make it stop.
lazs
-
Finally! Someone calling it the way it really is... pure bunk!
For decades I've been tired of the world's "intelligentsia" with thier attention starved pronouncements and publishing of hysterical "reports." It's no coincidence that they always run contrary to the objective, full of humanitarian concern and never selfserving tests and investigations by these poor corporations and industries who stand to lose the most from these undeserved attacks.
These smarty pants are carrying on these charades in order to sell thier books filled with lies and to continue grants they were granted for "research."
It's not only the human effect on global warming though. I also think smoking doesn't cause cancer. Anyone ever see it happen? Seen an inhale actually spark up a cancer cell? Hell no. Was probably due to years of parakeet dander inhalation that caused the death of Uncle Charlie and so many millions more.
And lead never effected childrens brains nor caused any other abnormalities. Any of you ever see lead cause harm? Course not. Little Jimmy is probably "slow" due to permissive, homo-loving, illegal alien employing, liberal parenting. Nothing that a fine ful- blinders-on conservative, corporal punishment based upbringing couldn't have cured. A firm back hand on the side of two year old Jimmies head would have worked wonders for his learning and behavioral abilities later on thats for damn sure
p.s. *IF* the earths temperature rose over the last 20 years it could easily be linked to the girth of Rosanne Barre. As she's gotten larger so has her ability to spread 98.6F temprature over a wider area.
-
lukster...I'll get back to you on that...I don't have time to illustrate it right now.
Lazs, why do we have any emission standards at all then? Is it all just b/s? Are the scientists as stupid as you and Rip seem to think they are? Talk about arrogance...geesh.
I was in traffic on a rush hour in Toronto last week. Hundreds of thosands of cars belching exhaust. That is one city out of many cities worldwide who have the same thing happen five days a weeks. You are saying this has no perceptable effect on global warming...or other environmental damage?
You are fooling yourself.
I know why you are arguing the case. You like hotrods and you don't want some scientist telling you that you cannot drive them anymore. Fine. Just admit it instead of trying to argue that we humans don't contribute to environmental degradation.
-
Emissions standards weren't (and may not be) about global warming they were about keeping the air breatheable in the valleys.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Just admit it instead of trying to argue that we humans don't contribute to environmental degradation.
Contribute? Yes as do all living breathing creatures.
What I don't agree with is that we are the cause of global warming.
-
curval.... you could have no emissions standards in an area where there was a lot of inversion or flushing of the area... say a tiny little island with a strong wind from only one direction.
The fact that fires from the indians in the 1800's would leave a haze in the LA basin is not a reason to ban cookfires around the world..
the fact that you seen pollution in toronto does not mean that people alaska got the same dose. The solution to pollution is dillution..
That being said... with modern computer controled fuel injection and catalytic converteres... it is quite easy to reduce emissions and help out the areas where air pollution is a big problem.
I am all for that so long as the standards are cost effective... say... you can reduce pollutants from the exhaust by 97% for $600 that has greatly helped the areas of high population and stagnant flushing action... it is not too big of a burden for people with no problem and... they will drive in that city at some time or another right?
Now... to further reduce emissions to 97.5% it would cost an additional $1500 per vehicle.... now we run into a problem. We also need to realize that we may be using up resources to outfit and opperate such vehicles...
for instance... it may take a lot of energy and material to make the new pollution device... said device may shorten the life of the vehicle and make it less efficient..
Yet... the environmental whack jobs will still promote it as "reducing emissions" This is not true... there may be some allmost immessuralble improvement in the places where people are crammed together in cities that are in bad areas... but.. the rest of the country is making things worse over all.
lazs
-
It`s the cow farts I`m tellin ya.......the cow farts!
Eat more steak. Save the world.
-
Not bad Rip ;)
Since I've been looking at this for the past 20 years or so, being sceptical in the beginning, (cold winters and summers up here in the period 1979 to 1983 while the 20's to 60's were warmer), I must confess that it's warming up, - definately.
Years back it was being debated whether it was warming, which the young myself could very well understand. Well, it turned out to be warming, and by now, faster than predicted.
Now the debate is about whether we have something to do with it or not.
After looking carefully, I rather figure that we do. Many still remain suspicious about this, since accepting it will mean a decrease in temporary life standards....maybe and for some.
My fears are that by the time we realize (if Al Gore is right, we'll see some rather impressive stuff n the next 20-30 years :D), we'll be too late to do anything, and will sit by and watch. Perhaps the end of civilization.
Once upon a time, the North pole was a bog. Once upon a time, the poles were elsewhere. Once upin a time, Iceland was almost tropical. And one day this planet will perish. But IMHO it is no excuse to overlook that the global warming WARNINGS turned true (The earliest ones being 100 years old), so we will have to look seriously at the reasons for them. Don't want Venus atmosphere on my turf, nope.
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
Contribute? Yes as do all living breathing creatures.
What I don't agree with is that we are the cause of global warming.
I'm not saying humans (note that I did not say Americans) CAUSED it. I just think that we are contributing to making it worse.
I just did a quick google search. Boy there are alot of arrogant and egotistical scientists out there who happen to agree with this. But, they are obviously wrong. The O'Club BBS is the place to get good data and good scientific facts from...nothing to do with defensive people who are driving large SUVs, trucks, hot rods etc. and who don't like the finger being pointed at them. Nor is it anything to do with a certain Treaty that people here are so defensive about...nope, it good cold hard facts that I see here.
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Curval
I'm not saying humans (note that I did not say Americans) CAUSED it. I just think that we are contributing to making it worse.
I just did a quick google search. Boy there are alot of arrogant and egotistical scientists out there who happen to agree with this. But, they are obviously wrong. The O'Club BBS is the place to get good data and good scientific facts from...nothing to do with defensive people who are driving large SUVs, trucks, hot rods etc. and who don't like the finger being pointed at them. Nor is it anything to do with a certain Treaty that people here are so defensive about...nope, it good cold hard facts that I see here.
:rolleyes:
How about those Russian scientists that have spent many years drilling for and examining hard evidence. The one's whose chart I posted. Are you dismissing their research or my understanding of it? I'll admit I'm not sure I understand what it means but I'm open to explanation. What it looks like to me is proof that the ice has been steadily melting in Antartica over the last 160,000 years. They also showed a steady increase in temperature over the last 150 years. I suppose it wouldn't be very scientific for them to extropolate that 150 year period over the last 160,000 though to predict an increasing rate or steady change in temperature.
-
Originally posted by lukster
What does this mean exactly?
(http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/images/icecoredepth.GIF)
From here: http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/globalwarmA.html
Okay man. You want my opinion on the first graph...the one which has "Years Before Present" on the X-axis?
If you look on the right hand side you should notice that the graphed line has a distinctive downward trend, right at the end. It is difficult to be very accurate on it, which I am sure is by design, but the period through which the ice depth is getting thinner FASTER is about in line with the industrial revolution to date. If you elongated that line without the sharp decline it would extend well beyond "the present" and give the earth priobably another 20,000 - 40,000 years before the ice thickness is zero.
So, I'd say your graph actually backs up what I (and thousands of scientists) are saying. It is so difficult to tell though because it has obviously been used to try and convince the person seeing it of your arguments. It is so very very vague when you get out to the far right hand side of the graph. I'd like to see the graph START at 40,000 years before the present. it would be much more "telling".
Now we get a look at the regression analysis that was put forward in your link. The margin of errors in that graph make it useless...as mentioned in the article here:
"However, this finding is under dispute because some claim that the amount of error in the data is too large to justify the conclusion."
So, sorry...I don't think much of your Russian scientist's link.
-
I noticed that downward trend also but what I see is a sharper slope beginning about 4,000 to 5,000 years ago. To me that implies our current warming trend is natural.
-
See? The graph is so poorly done we can't even agree on what we see. We are only interested in the past 5,000 years (to determine if there is any global warming effect due to the industrial revolution)...but instead of detail we get a graph that begins 160,000 years ago. Why? Because it backs up their argument better.
-
Regardless of how much human influence is affecting global change...and I believe that we're not making the situation any better...it's really really bad news if the Atlantic temp cools enough to slow the gulf stream current.
Just remember that the Alaskan Pipeline was built on permafrost, and as it continues to soften and settle, the pipeline's intgrity will be compromised
None of us will be around to see it happen anyway, so, drive on. :aok
-
the Alaskan Pipeline was built ABOVE the permafrost, to keep from melting it and to allow the migration of caribou.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
See Rule #4
OK, let's try that one again, without the initial sentence. (I saved it just in case!)
The latest studies I personally have seen on this issue were those presented in David Attenborough's programme last Friday: http://www.bbc.co.uk/climatechaos
We know that the earth's climate is cyclic, and that some warming is due to natural causes. But (and it's a very big but) the climatological model presented in the programme calculates the increase in global temperature based on man-made carbon emissions, having taken into account the natural changes. Using the computer model that they have, they can ask it to make projections about climate changes based on a multitude of criteria. A full explanation of this data model would have been beyond the scope of the programme. But I am left in no doubt that they have allowed for the earth's own warming trend. They have allowed for CO2 being absorbed by trees and other biomass. They have allowed for the amount of CO2 which is absorbed by the oceans. The predictions for global warming are made for a variety of scenarios. One scenario is that we burn less fossil fuel, use fuel from renewable resources, more nuclear energy for electricity, and other energy sources like solar power and wind driven turbines. At the opposite end of the scale is what will happen if we change nothing and go on as we have before, burning fossil fuels with gay abandon...
Emissions of CO2 in the USA in 2004 totalled more than 7 billion tonnes. Source: US Department of Energy - http://ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/oiaf/1605...grpt/057304.pdf
This is about 25% of the world total, and it is estimated that this will increase by ~50% by 2030. The scientific studies that I have seen analyse the warming effect caused by the current levels of output, and the projected increases. Does anyone here seriously believe that the ~800 billion tonnes of man-made CO2 which will be released into the atmosphere by 2030 are "not going to make a difference" with regard to the warming effect known to be caused by CO2 in the atmosphere? Sure, the earth goes through cycles, but when was the last time in the earth's history that these levels of CO2 were being released?
-
Originally posted by Curval
See? The graph is so poorly done we can't even agree on what we see. We are only interested in the past 5,000 years (to determine if there is any global warming effect due to the industrial revolution)...but instead of detail we get a graph that begins 160,000 years ago. Why? Because it backs up their argument better.
The industrial revolution started 5,000 years ago?:huh
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
Regardless of how much human influence is affecting global change...and I believe that we're not making the situation any better...it's really really bad news if the Atlantic temp cools enough to slow the gulf stream current.
Just remember that the Alaskan Pipeline was built on permafrost, and as it continues to soften and settle, the pipeline's intgrity will be compromised
None of us will be around to see it happen anyway, so, drive on. :aok
That pipeline was designed to last 15 years. Its past 30 now. It has to be replaced soon, regardless.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Sure, the earth goes through cycles, but when was the last time in the earth's history that these levels of CO2 were being released?
650,000 years ago.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
650,000 years ago.
By what?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The industrial revolution started 5,000 years ago?:huh
Where did you get that from?
I said we need a graph that shows the melting FROM 5,000 years ago to the present to see if global warming increased rapidly during the Industrial Revolution and onward. We need to go back about 5,000 years to the trend prior to and then since the revolution. I used 5,000 years ago because lukster mentioned that the sharp downward trend in the graph began 5,000 years ago...but you could do 10,000, 2,500, 15,000...whatever. Starting 160,000 years ago distorts the graph massively when you try and look at the years closer to today.
-
For Beetle...
Don't know...
We find that CO2 is about 30% higher than at any time, and methane 130% higher than at any time; and the rates of increase are absolutely exceptional: for CO2, 200 times faster than at any time in the last 650,000 years."
link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4467420.stm)
It's gotta be wrong, as there was no industry at the time.
-
For Curval...
Originally posted by Curval
See? The graph is so poorly done we can't even agree on what we see. We are only interested in the past 5,000 years (to determine if there is any global warming effect due to the industrial revolution)...but instead of detail we get a graph that begins 160,000 years ago. Why? Because it backs up their argument better.
Seemed to be what you were saying. If you can compare years before the start of the industrial revolution, 5,000 years seems rather arbitrary.
-
It is arbitary. I said so when I responded to you.
You need to start SOMETIME before the IR to get a trend leading up to it, then go to the present to see the trend since. 160,000 years distorts the time nearer to the present.
-
From your link;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4467420.stm
Current levels of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere are higher now than at any time in the past 650,000 years.
This is a classic case of seeing what you want to see. Nowhere in the article does it say that CO2 emissions were ever as high as they are now.
"We find that CO2 is about 30% higher than at any time, and methane 130% higher than at any time; and the rates of increase are absolutely exceptional: for CO2, 200 times faster than at any time in the last 650,000 years."
-
Originally posted by john9001
the Alaskan Pipeline was built ABOVE the permafrost, to keep from melting it and to allow the migration of caribou.
In most cases^^
Some of it is buried.
Selection — Soil sampling and other means were used to determine soil types along the route. Where thaw-stable soils were found, the pipeline was buried in the conventional manner. In areas of thaw-unstable soils, and where heat from the oil in the pipeline might cause thawing and consequent loss of soil foundation stability, the pipeline was insulated and elevated above ground by means of a unique support system.
Basic types and miles of each
-
Incidently, Trees are responsible for 25% of the worlds methane:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4604332.stm
So maybe we should start defoliation of the all world's forests first! ;)
-
Originally posted by Curval
See? The graph is so poorly done we can't even agree on what we see. We are only interested in the past 5,000 years (to determine if there is any global warming effect due to the industrial revolution)...but instead of detail we get a graph that begins 160,000 years ago. Why? Because it backs up their argument better.
Argument? I didn't see an argument or a conclusion at that link, only data.
-
RIP:
"Incidently, Trees are responsible for 25% of the worlds methane"
You forget the rest.....Trees as other growing vegetation that binds charbon and buries it into the ground in time, are the tools against greenhouse gas emission.
What are greenhouse gases? CO2, Methane, and where hot enough, WATER. Give a wee more heat, and you'll have more. Give a wee more melting on the northern areas, - tundras, and you'll begin to see methane. That is what the vast Siberian areas have in ample quantities and will release if melting enough for a good layer to "come alive" again.
Ooops....
But I think you were basically being sarcastic there or?
-
Then this...RIP:
"The actual number for chimp DNA is 98%, but I just wanted to keep the numbers close for the comparison. 2% is the difference between building an airplane and throwing poo."
Little percentages in the earth's balance also do a lot....;)
-
Originally posted by Angus
Then this...RIP:
"The actual number for chimp DNA is 98%, but I just wanted to keep the numbers close for the comparison. 2% is the difference between building an airplane and throwing poo."
Little percentages in the earth's balance also do a lot....;)
Did you know that the volcanic eruptions on earth in the past 100 years have discharged more green house gases into the atmosphere than humans have? Google it. ;)
-
Do you know that the Volcanoe's effects are yet mostly cooling due to the dust and ash particles they release?
The examples are even known in the USA as well as a well known chilling period in Europe in the 1780's and 1790's and some say this actually catapulted into the French revolution,,,untimely hunger you see.
Oh, google brought me little. Do you have a linkie?
-
Originally posted by Angus
Do you know that the Volcanoe's effects are yet mostly cooling due to the dust and ash particles they release?
The examples are even known in the USA as well as a well known chilling period in Europe in the 1780's and 1790's and some say this actually catapulted into the French revolution,,,untimely hunger you see.
Oh, google brought me little. Do you have a linkie? [/B]
They produce both cooling effects and warming effects, long term they produce global warming. I figure a man that projects him an expert in this field of global warming would at LEAST know this...;)
http://www.earthsci.org/education/teacher/basicgeol/change/change.html#VolcanicEffects
-
Originally posted by AlGorithm
This is a classic case of seeing what you want to see. Nowhere in the article does it say that CO2 emissions were ever as high as they are now.
You are correct: my mistake.
I was expecting to see something and thought I found it with not enough due diligence.
Kind of like the science in climate science.
Climatic Change (49: 2001) Dr. Gerald North, Professor of Meteorology and Oceanography at Texas A&M, reviewed the book, Global Warming: The Hard Science, was written by L.D. Danny Harvey.
Twenty years ago the National Academy of Sciences produced a study that stated that, "If the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere were doubled, the new temperature after equilibrium would be 1-3 degrees C higher."
It is now two decades later, and we still have approximately the same or even greater uncertainty for the sensitivity of climate to such an external forcing. In spite of all our increased understanding of [the] climate system over this period, we have not managed to narrow this uncertainty.
Climate modeling and simulation do not form a science in the classical sense. We cannot formulate a hypothesis and then proceed to test it in the laboratory. We have a complicated system with only a finite history of empirical information about it – far from enough, in fact.
The range of uncertainty is not an easy thing to assess. It seems to be mainly derived from an intercomparison of the models produced by different scientific groups around the world. This is a very poor means of arriving at the real uncertainty, since the models are rather similar to one another and probably even more like each other than like nature.
Using our fastest computers, North points out, it would take a month to run a point-by-point simulation of a one second evolution of the atmospheric motions within a one-kilometer cube.
"Hence, one is forced to the familiar procedure of parameterization and the inevitable fudge factors. We simply cannot get around it."
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Did you know that the volcanic eruptions on earth in the past 100 years have discharged more green house gases into the atmosphere than humans have? Google it. ;)
So, because there have been a few volcanic eruptions in the last hundred years, we don't have to worry about the ~800 billion tonnes of man-made CO2 that will be released into the atmosphere by 2030. Mmmm, OK.
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/ostrich.gif)
Read my previous Attenborough post again, Rip. The climatologists' computer model takes account of these natural events, and as Angus says - and as your link concurs - volcanoes also have a cooling effect - ash and sulphur. The doomsday predictions are based on man-made CO2. I'll be standing by to re-post this another 500 times, until you "get it".
-
that bird is looking for climate change causing volcanoes?
-
LOL, what a birdie :D
Anyway:
This was the first article I read that enters the issue of volcanoes, so TY.
Unfortunately they are unstoppable. So is my own death. But I still won't be persuaded to go out and party to death right away, nope :D
-
If we will just keep those ancient Egyptians working hard and those forests thinned we should be in the clear. :)
-
Thinned as in you breathing without lungs. Must work fine.
-
If you don`t thin em, you are promoting more emissions. :)
Don`t worry about it though. After the planting and the building of all the aquaducts, the AE`s will have to have something to do. We`ll put em on thinning crews. :)
-
You have this the wrong way jackal. It's grammar school issue. Forests tie up charbon. Plants tie up charbon.
Plants: 6H2O + 6CO2 + lj¨®s ¡ú C6H12O6 (gl¨²k¨®si) + 6O2
That was how charbon gets tied as glucose. Well, you have glucose/fructose, and you have starch and you have wood - they all need the same ammo, which is CO2, Water, Light and Temperature. Get it?
-
Rotting vegetation produces C02 which is released into the atmosphere. Just like anything else...........too much of a good thing can cause more harm than good. Besides that, as discussed before, the forests do not plant themselves. :)
Get it?
-
Some vegetation rots, the rest becomes soil, which has charbon in it. Capiche?
And who planted the ancient forests? Who planted the grand leave forests of the US? Who planted the rainforests? Who planted the pines in the arctic? Who planted the European forests? (in the EU there is actually a subvention on maintaining meadows so the forests don't quite take over).
In short, once you have a forest and leave it alone, it actually will plant itself. Trim it, and it will yeald you material and fuel, don't trim it, and it will grow dense and darker, some material will rot, the rest forms soil.
BTW, the charbon emission of a "rotting" forest actually had its origin in the atmosphere before. Get it?
And the Egyptians, yes, you lost what I ment when I referred to them.
They are irrigating a vast area of desert, and turning large areas green. That means that in addition to sand, there will be forming of topsoil. And topsoil contains.....amongst other things....CHARBON.
PFFFT
(free minutes)
-
I am reminded of two children who are standing face to face yelling, "No it isn't", and "Yes it is" back and forth. The argument being a neighborhood yard. One thinks it is green, the other says it is brown.
Truth is, they are both right. The yard contains brown and green, but the two kids both have slight color perception issues, with one seeing green better and the other seeing brown better.
The Internet has created so many experts in this area. Truth is, you can find whatever supporting data you want for your argument. It does not make anyone right nor wrong. If you think you have a handle on it, you are just being ignorant, or happy to take things out of context.
There is not a scientist on the planet who can say with 100% affirmation what is really going on. They cannot model all the variables involved. And if they could, the process to determine what is happening would not be completed in thier lifetimes.
Just because some scientist is content to make some grand statement as to what is happening does not make it fact. Even less so if it is on the Internet. Anyone can fudge up a site which would have you believing little green men from Alpha Centari are the ones responsible for the Earth's climate and sight all kinds of data to support it. None of it would be real though. But it would do for many of the posters purposes in this thread, I am sure.
It you are unwilling to challenge any data presented, you are a sheep.at the mercy of anyone who is good at creating fiction. There are no absolutes in this. You are kidding yourself if you think there are.
-
lol
This is hilarious.
-
Well, you will get the scientists to agree on
1. What's in soil
2. Plants use sunlight, heat, water and CO2 to tie up charbon.
3. Vast areas of forests bind carbon and release oxygen.
And what we know is going on is...that the globe is warming.
The one to debate this is the kid in the yard :D
-
curval.. I have linked these before..
http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba256.html
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
mostly... greenhouse gases are water and methane... Co2 is a small part. Man produces about 2-4% of co2.
It is also noted that Co2 does not proceed global warming it trailers it.. it is a result not a cause.
Also as noted... a doubling of Co2 (100 years at current rates) will increase temp by 1-3 degrees by even the most pessemistic models. levels would have to increase to 5000 ppm to be a threat to health (currently 320ppm)
The increase in Co2 increases plant growth tho. If starvation is a factor in our survival...we need more co2. It is a good thing.
Volcanoes cause mass releases of Co2 gases. One volcano eruption would cause more than man could cause in a decade.. we could reduce to zero and one volcano could undo all our efforts.
There are wide swings in temp over the life of the earth... the warming trends are followed by co2 levels rising.. We are in a warming trend.
There is nothing we can do about it. We are a very insignificant part of it. If we were in a cooling trend for instance... we could not stop it.
If we were in a cooling trend I doubt that the chicken littles here would be suggesting that we emmit more co2.
lazs
-
for more than a half century I have listened to the chicken littles of this world.... "we are all gonna freeze to death in the new ice age by the year 1999" Then... when temp rises half a degree.... "we are in the throes of global warming and will destroy the planet in twenty years."
or... " We will all starve to death by the year 2000" but when Co2 increases (and plant growth) we scream... "there is too much co2!"
or... "we will run out of the most important (and they name ten) minerals by the year 1990" and then... it is found that there are more of every one they named by 1990 than were in 1950.
"we will run out of oil by the year 2000" and then... we have more reserves than were known in 1975..
It seems that some just like to panic while others have a vested interest (profit) in getting people to have em "do something" Governments love people to panic and beg em to "do anything to save us...you are our only hope."
People love to mob up with the chicken littles and beg for more expense and government and a savior... some just like the feel of oppression that doom and gloom gives em.... makes their life seem not so bad when there is a huge crisis that threatens the very planet! Some.... are just jealous of others and want to blame them and punish them... they do things like kyoto and such.
Lots of suckers born every year it seems...
I imagine that someone will tell us that the days are increasing (or decreasing) in length more now than any other time in history once the man made global warming fad is over. Can't wait for that one.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Anyone can fudge up a site which would have you believing little green men from Alpha Centari are the ones responsible for the Earth's climate and sight all kinds of data to support it. None of it would be real though.
Yes it is. :furious :rofl
-
Can anyone tell me who climatologists are funded by?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I imagine that someone will tell us that the days are increasing (or decreasing) in length more now than any other time in history once the man made global warming fad is over. Can't wait for that one.
lazs
It's true! We're using up the daylight that belongs to our children and grandchildren. Just say no to daylight savings time!
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Can anyone tell me who climatologists are funded by?
The Ancient Egyptian Society For Cleaner Air. :D
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Lots of suckers born every year it seems...
Yup.
Some read a book or two...or a web page or two and take it as gospel.
For example, lets take a quick peek at your first linked organisation:
Funding
The NCPA web site states that it "receives 70% of its funding from foundations, 20% from corporations, and 10% from individuals." Between 1985 and 2001, the Center received $4,031,000 in 75 separate grants from only twelve foundations (http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientgrants.php?recipientID=246).
Castle Rock Foundation
Earhart Foundation
JM Foundation
Koch Family Foundations (David H. Koch Foundation, Charles G. Koch Foundation, Claude R. Lambe Foundation)
John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
Philip M. McKenna Foundation, Inc.
Scaife Foundations (Scaife Family, Sarah Mellon Scaife, Carthage)
DaimlerChrysler Corporation Fund
El Paso Energy Foundation
ExxonMobil Foundation
Eli Lilly and Company Foundation
Lilly Endowment Inc.
Procter & Gamble Fund
LOL!
Big business is telling you not to worry lazs...all is well.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Yup.
Some read a book or two...or a web page or two and take it as gospel.
For example, lets take a quick peek at your first linked organisation:
Funding
The NCPA web site states that it "receives 70% of its funding from foundations, 20% from corporations, and 10% from individuals." Between 1985 and 2001, the Center received $4,031,000 in 75 separate grants from only twelve foundations (http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientgrants.php?recipientID=246).
Castle Rock Foundation
Earhart Foundation
JM Foundation
Koch Family Foundations (David H. Koch Foundation, Charles G. Koch Foundation, Claude R. Lambe Foundation)
John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
Philip M. McKenna Foundation, Inc.
Scaife Foundations (Scaife Family, Sarah Mellon Scaife, Carthage)
DaimlerChrysler Corporation Fund
El Paso Energy Foundation
ExxonMobil Foundation
Eli Lilly and Company Foundation
Lilly Endowment Inc.
Procter & Gamble Fund
LOL!
Big business is telling you not to worry lazs...all is well.
Whats worse, big business saying all is okay or universities latching onto government subsidized tax dollars for funded projects that bring in a steady paycheck?
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Whats worse, big business saying all is okay or universities latching onto government subsidized tax dollars for funded projects that bring in a steady paycheck?
That would be a judgement call and it really isn't relevant.
What lazs has done is to point out "proof" that non-natural CO2 emissions are no big deal and they are nothing to worry about.
He got this "proof" from a site that is sponsored by people who build and sell cars (among others).
Do you really think that site would say anything that might suggest cars are a problem?
I doubt it. In fact I more than doubt it.
I don't have time to poke holes in his other link, but I doubt it would take much effort.
-
Originally posted by Curval
That would be a judgement call and it really isn't relevant.
.
With your axe to grind with Lazs aside, I think it is completely relevent. You get the information you want from climatologists, the source of that money is the driving factor.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
With your axe to grind with Lazs aside, I think it is completely relevent. You get the information you want from climatologists, the source of that money is the driving factor.
Incorrect. I didn't get any information from anyone. I simply used my own powers of observation.
Millions upon millions of cars spew exhaust into the air every single day worldwide. Factories belch out smoke and waste 24/7.
To say this is not having an effect on global warming is just silly in my opinion. It is JUST my opinion. I have repeatedly said I am not a scientist and I have not linked any research in this thread. I have not used any climatologist data to back up anything and have in fact pointed out that the environmental lobby is just another form of big business.
What I am NOT doing is arguing a point from a political or ideological perspective...I'll leave that whirling purse fight to you and others.
-
I'm not a scientist either, but probably about the only one here with an agricultural eduction and my sources are mostly NOT from the internet.
You can chip this debate into many subfactors. Like:
1. Is the globe warming or not. (Well established yes)
2. Is it because of us (debateable)
3 Are we having any effect (Rather well established yes, I'd say)
4 How big is our effect (That's worth a good thread)
5 Can we do anything about it (yes of course)
Then on to the silly part:
6 Is it because of the trees and plants emitting to much (no, you silly)
7 Does Photosynthese tie up charbon (yes yes yes)
-
Originally posted by Angus
I'm not a scientist either, but probably about the only one here with an agricultural eduction and my sources are mostly NOT from the internet.
You can chip this debate into many subfactors. Like:
1. Is the globe warming or not. (Well established yes)
2. Is it because of us (debateable)
3 Are we having any effect (Rather well established yes, I'd say)
4 How big is our effect (That's worth a good thread)
5 Can we do anything about it (yes of course)
Then on to the silly part:
6 Is it because of the trees and plants emitting to much (no, you silly)
7 Does Photosynthese tie up charbon (yes yes yes)
Agree with most of your post except number 6. David Lowe of New Zealand's National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research would disagree with you, and he has research papers, you have an opinion.
-
8. Most importantly, what impact will global warming have on us?
I disagree with more than one of your assertions though Angus.
-
Originally posted by Curval
...I just did a quick google search. Boy there are alot of arrogant and egotistical scientists out there who happen to agree with this. But, they are obviously wrong. The O'Club BBS is the place to get good data and good scientific facts from...
:rofl
-
"8. Most importantly, what impact will global warming have on us?
I disagree with more than one of your assertions though Angus."
Oh yeah? Which one would be nice to know.
-
And Rip:
"Agree with most of your post except number 6. David Lowe of New Zealand's National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research would disagree with you, and he has research papers, you have an opinion."
Everything building up humus that contains matter as C, be it forest, grass, or sealife does....tie up a greenhouse gas ;)
-
3 and 5. I don't think either has been "well established".
-
curval... what about the second site? you seem upset that corporations are doing research and interpreting it... but.... the scientists who have a vested interest in funding (grants) their research are lilly white and clean?
And... you did not argue that any of the data was wrong... mostly because it all came from "scientists".
It would seem that "scientists" are potatos whose integrity is up or the highest bidder. I got no problem with that.... let's let em fight it out.
you claim tho that you know what is going on just by looking.... pretty much the "religion of environmentalism" in it's best example. Hard to believe that someone so religious would even fly in big planet killing jets just to play in the snow or look at the sights.... But then... much eaisier to blame everyone elses habits eh?
Angus makes some conclusions that I disagree with... he claims that we can do something about it... While in the strictest sense this is very much true.....he doesn't say what and he doesn't say if "doing something about it" will even have any effect..
for instance.... if you wanted to dry up an ocean then grabbing a cupfull of ocean water and walking it 20 miles into the desert would be "doing something about it" so far as helping to dry out the ocean. By the same token... relieving yourself into the ocean would be "causing harm" in so far as your goal of drying up the ocean.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Angus
I'm not a scientist either, but probably about the only one here with an agricultural eduction and my sources are mostly NOT from the internet.
]
:D ..................forest for the trees.
1. Is the globe warming or not. (Well established yes)
Yes, if you choose to beleive that side of the coin who says it is . No, if you choose to beleive the side who says it is not.
3 Are we having any effect (Rather well established yes, I'd say)
The so called fact has not even been established as such.
I agree humans are and have been having an effect on the earth and it`s atmosphere since the first one took a leak on a fig tree. That`s a no brainer. Some good, some bad. Just like every other animal, plant or object on the face of the earth. We could just all commit suicide and not take a chance. You go first. :) I`m gonna try to hang around for the drawing.
6 Is it because of the trees and plants emitting to much (no, you silly)
Rotting vegetation is claimed to be having an effect on this by the tree huggers..........errr scientists in support of the theory even. Rotting marsh/swamps, etc. seem to be a biggy with them. Of course that has also been happening since the beginning of recorded history. Just like the constant changes and cycles of earth`s weather patterns.
-
you seem upset that corporations are doing research and interpreting it... but.... the scientists who have a vested interest in funding (grants) their research are lilly white and clean?
Do you actually ever read what I write?
And... you did not argue that any of the data was wrong... mostly because it all came from "scientists".
You mean on your first link? I can't argue science...I'm not a scientist (for the fourth or fifth time). What I did was to simply point out that big business contributed to the creation of all that research. If you think they would be totally unbiased about the content I have a bridge to sell you.
It would seem that "scientists" are potatos whose integrity is up or the highest bidder. I got no problem with that.... let's let em fight it out.
Absolutely. It's like using "expert witnesses" in a trial.
you claim tho that you know what is going on just by looking.... pretty much the "religion of environmentalism" in it's best example. Hard to believe that someone so religious would even fly in big planet killing jets just to play in the snow or look at the sights.... But then... much eaisier to blame everyone elses habits eh?
Again, if you took the time to read what I have written you will see that I admitted my habits were as bad as anyone's with respect to the environment. What I said was that I admitted it rather than saying "everything is okay" and then using scientific facts that I don't understand to back it up.
I see tonnes and tonnes of emissions every time I travel, be it to Canada, the US Europe, the near East or wherever. I simply cannot believe that there are no environmental repercussions. Lukster made mention of the fact that emission standards were put in place to make the air breathable and not because of CO2. Frankly having breathable air is kind of important, don'tcha think? So, if it isn't for global warming reasons, fine...but don't try and tell me that all those emissions are fine and dandy. They aren't. What about carbon monoxide in he air? Have any data on that?
Angus makes some conclusions that I disagree with... he claims that we can do something about it... While in the strictest sense this is very much true.....he doesn't say what and he doesn't say if "doing something about it" will even have any effect..
for instance.... if you wanted to dry up an ocean then grabbing a cupfull of ocean water and walking it 20 miles into the desert would be "doing something about it" so far as helping to dry out the ocean. By the same token... relieving yourself into the ocean would be "causing harm" in so far as your goal of drying up the ocean.
Anything can be taken to the extreme as you have clearly pointed out.
-
Does anyone know how much CO2 the vegetation of this planet consumes annually? Seems all the quotes I have seen about CO2 being produced is a gross figure. Would make more sense if it were a net figure.
But then again, big numbers are always more alarming than small numbers.
-
Originally posted by Curval
If you look on the right hand side you should notice that the graphed line has a distinctive downward trend, right at the end. It is difficult to be very accurate on it, which I am sure is by design, but the period through which the ice depth is getting thinner FASTER is about in line with the industrial revolution to date. If you elongated that line without the sharp decline it would extend well beyond "the present" and give the earth priobably another 20,000 - 40,000 years before the ice thickness is zero.
I don't think you understand what that chart is.
It is core depth for years. That means the ice is now currently 2000 feet (or whatever) deep. The chart means "what depth do you have to core to get that year's emissions data". It's not that the ice is melting, it's that it is building and trapping environmental data with it. It won't be zero in 40,000 years, it's currently zero since that would be the surface of the ice. What the chart shows is that the ice actually accumulated faster over the last 4000 years. Though, that really means nothing in and of itself. The composition of the ice is what is actually scientific. They just showed an arbitrary chart with a downward trend and people think the icecap is melting because of it.
It's amazing how misinterpreted this chart has been in this thread. Unfortunately, it's also typical.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Does anyone know how much CO2 the vegetation of this planet consumes annually? Seems all the quotes I have seen about CO2 being produced is a gross figure. Would make more sense if it were a net figure.
But then again, big numbers are always more alarming than small numbers.
It doesn't really matter if you take a say 500 year look at the carbon cycle, as all the carbon that an oak tree takes up is returned to the cycle when it burns or rots. A pine tree only sequesters the carbon for a couple of centuries.
Carbon sequestration from the cycle happens when carboniferous stuff gets fossilized and put into the rock as coal, chalk, petroleum, and the other stuff we dig up and use.
The issue is what is the result of us taking this fossilized stuff out and put it back into the cycle.
-
BTW Curval, that website shows the temperature that icecap was exposed to decreasing over the last 5000 years. Something that occured prior to that caused one hell of a spike.
-
Is that the Mars icecap your taking about? Its shrinking too. Global warming is happening on a couple other celestial bodies as well.
-
Ok Jackal, lesson 2:
"1. Is the globe warming or not. (Well established yes)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, if you choose to beleive that side of the coin who says it is . No, if you choose to beleive the side who says it is not."
There is an explanation while I call it "well established". It's been measured worldwide and the effects on the polar caps are well visible.
While the southern pole will stay for quite long with chunks the size of small countries sliding into the sea, the Northern Pole, which has been there for 50 million years, is melting away at a whooping speed.
Look at pictures (which you have seen before).
(http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gat2005-600x283.gif)
And
(http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/images/fcons5.jpg)
-
Good post, Angus - though I suspect that some will remain unconvinced. :huh
I have taken a step back from this thread, to ponder why some people persist in refuting scientific evidence with regard to global warming, and man’s contribution in the form of billions of tonnes of CO2 released into the atmosphere annually.
I was born the same year as skuzzy and lukster (aka AKIron), and was in my early teens during NASA’s Apollo programme to put man on the moon. I watched on TV with particular interest, especially from the Apollo-8 mission (first manned space flight to leave earth’s orbit) through to Apollo 11, and heard the words “One small step for man…” live on TV, shortly after Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon. I was in awe of the scientific research that had taken place to make this feat possible, less than 70 years after Wilbur and Orville Wright had made man’s first powered flight over a distance shorter than the 231ft length of a Boeing 747.
100 years prior to the 1969 Apollo 11 moon landing, there would have been many naysayers, who believed that manned flight of any kind was impossible, and who even believed that the earth was flat. However, by 1969, when the event was about to happen, no-one was in any doubt that man would indeed walk on the moon, as the Apollo craft sped towards it. But let’s consider for a moment the calculations that would have been needed to make this possible – the relative positions of the sun, moon and earth and the movements of these celestial bodies would have to have been taken into account. The timing of the relaunch of the moon vehicle in order to re-dock with the lunar orbiter would have been critical. It all happened because of a well thought out plan. In short, the NASA scientists and their associates knew what they were talking about – and we never doubted them. In the years since, I have often marvelled at the way astronomers can predict when and where a solar eclipse is going to occur, especially as these predictions are made YEARS in advance. The last one I saw here was on 11th August 1999. The fact that it happened, right on cue just as scientists/astronomers predicted, tells me that these scientists know what they’re talking about. And again, when the event was about to happen, no-one was in any doubt that it would. No-one here was citing these predictions as scientific mumbo-jumbo on 10th August 1999, for example.
Now we have a different situation – global warming. Unlike the next solar eclipse, the calamitous end result (assuming Man continues on the present course) is decades away, and will probably not happen to any significant degree within the lifetimes of those of us who were able to watch the Apollo moonlanding. Thus, the sceptics can pooh-pooh the scientific data presented by guys like Curval and Angus ^ and do it from a position of relative safety, knowing that they probably won’t be around when the excrement hits the fan.
But I find it interesting that those who are the most dismissive of the alarms about global warming reject the scientific findings out of hand in the first place, and then search for ways to discredit them afterwards. I struggle to find a way to define this strange behaviour, and can best describe it as “reverse dogmatism”. Instead of presenting their own views as the absolute truth, they do the reverse by citing the views of others (including accomplished scientists) as patent falsehoods in the first instance, and then look for ways to discredit these claims in the second instance.
Earlier in this thread, I said I’d been following David Attenborough’s series on global warming: http://www.bbc.co.uk/climatechaos DA is actually a zoologist, who has been presenting programmes on the subject since the 1970s, covering just about all species of animal, reptile, insect, fish and bird known to man, as well as their evolution and that of the earth itself. Clearly the man isn’t stupid. So why would anyone doubt the material presented in his series about global warming, even if climatology is not the epicentre of his field of expertise?
Could it be that the proposed changes that Man needs to make to avert the disaster of global warming are perceived as going against the personal lifestyles of certain individuals who persist in refuting the scientific evidence? Could these same people be thinking that “it’s all a conspiracy”, and a government ploy to take away their vehicles, for example?
Having been reading this thread and others like it for several months now, I’m seeing some ridiculous claims being made, falling into three broad categories. - ”Because global warming may be part of a natural cyclic change - however small, we should be absolved of any responsibility to reduce Man’s CO2 output, ie. we can forget about the trillion tonnes of CO2 which will be emitted by 2050. And… because global warming is happening on Mars, well hey – that just proves that it’s nature at work, and not our problem!”
- "It’s all a conspiracy. The government has an agenda and wants me to drive a smaller car"
- ”It’s all to do with cow farts”
That last item is so ridiculous as to be barely worthy of mention. But what’s even more ridiculous is the claim that global warming and climate change is a political issue. I can assure you that the disaster waiting to occur will take place whichever party is in power!
But even that is not as ridiculous as the latest naysayers’ stance, which is that concern for climate change is a form of religion. That surely takes the biscuit. :rofl
-
Originally posted by Mini D
I don't think you understand what that chart is.
It is core depth for years. That means the ice is now currently 2000 feet (or whatever) deep. The chart means "what depth do you have to core to get that year's emissions data". It's not that the ice is melting, it's that it is building and trapping environmental data with it. It won't be zero in 40,000 years, it's currently zero since that would be the surface of the ice. What the chart shows is that the ice actually accumulated faster over the last 4000 years. Though, that really means nothing in and of itself. The composition of the ice is what is actually scientific. They just showed an arbitrary chart with a downward trend and people think the icecap is melting because of it.
It's amazing how misinterpreted this chart has been in this thread. Unfortunately, it's also typical.
lol
Okay mr smarty pants.
But, why are you pointing this out to me specifically? I wasn't the one who presented it as "proof" that the ice cap is melting and that it has been doing so naturally for tens of thousands of years. All I did was to take that as the reason (as it was presented) and tried to show how difficult it was to actually get any meanful information out of it.
For the fifth or sixth time...I'm not a scientist. I don't claim to be an expert at any of this stuff.
It isn't amazing that it has been misinterpreted at all. It IS typical though. Most of the "research" presented in this thread was quickly googled and used to promote a side of the argument. It is one reason why I didn't present ANY backup to my opinion.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
BTW Curval, that website shows the temperature that icecap was exposed to decreasing over the last 5000 years. Something that occured prior to that caused one hell of a spike.
And I'm sure if I spent enough google time I could find a site that says something totally different.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Ok Jackal, lesson 2:
"1. Is the globe warming or not. (Well established yes)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, if you choose to beleive that side of the coin who says it is . No, if you choose to beleive the side who says it is not."
There is an explanation while I call it "well established". It's been measured worldwide and the effects on the polar caps are well visible.
While the southern pole will stay for quite long with chunks the size of small countries sliding into the sea, the Northern Pole, which has been there for 50 million years, is melting away at a whooping speed.
Look at pictures (which you have seen before).
(http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gat2005-600x283.gif)
And
(http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/images/fcons5.jpg)
OK Angus..........lesson rerun. :)
Yea.....we`ve done the graph and picture thingie before. You post a graph that says one thing and I can post a graph that says the opposite.
Not well established. Established with who? Those that believe it. There are just as many that says nay as there are that says yea.
The earth has been going through weather cycles since the beginning of recorded history.
-
Ok Jackal find them.
Especially find me a graph that shows the North pole NOT melting.
Then take a glass of whisky, put an iscube in it, leave it at living room temperature, and an hour later proof to me that it's not melting/melted :D
Some things, such as that one, cannot be debated bud. Think of it, it's been there 50.000.000 years.....
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Having been reading this thread and others like it for several months now, I�m seeing some ridiculous claims being made
I`m seeing the history of manned space travel. Not sure why, but that`s what I`m seeing.
It`s all to do with cow farts
That last item is so ridiculous as to be barely worthy of mention.
Do you find it ridiculous Beet? Do you ? Huh?
Well........so do I, but since I was the one who threw that in, let`s put it in context, shall we?
The actual comment, for those that don`t want to review was, "It`s the cow farts I`m tellin ya.......the cow farts!
Eat more steak. Save the world."
It was put in as a joke. A funny. A haha. Get it?
OK, but since you find it ridiculous and you put such faith in so called scientists, let`s have a look at it, shall we?
Scientists in London evidently don`t find it ridiculous. Myabe you should dial em up and have a word with them. :)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scientists working on cure for gassy cows
Food additive could reduce methane emissions dramatically
LONDON - Cows belching and breaking wind cause methane pollution, but British scientists say they have developed a diet to make pastures smell like roses — almost.
“In some experiments we get a 70 percent decrease (in methane emissions), which is quite staggering,†biochemist John Wallace told Reuters in a telephone interview.
Wallace, leader of the microbial biochemistry group at the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, said the secret to sweeter-smelling cows is a food additive based on fumaric acid, a naturally occurring chemical essential to respiration of animal and vegetable tissues.
A 12-month commercial and scientific evaluation of the additive has just begun, but he said if it proves successful it could be a boon to cutting down on greenhouse gas emissions.
“In total around 14 percent of global methane comes from the guts of farm animals. It is worth doing something about,†Wallace said. Other big sources of methane are landfills, coal mines, rice paddies and bogs.
Scientists in Australia and New Zealand have also been working to develop similar products amid growing concern about greenhouse gas emissions from cattle and sheep.
In New Zealand the government in 2003 proposed a flatulence tax, with methane emitted by farm animals responsible for more than half the country’s greenhouse gases. The plan was ultimately withdrawn after widespread protests.
“We’ve had more success than they (scientists in Australia and New Zealand) have. Everyone has been trying different methods. We just got lucky,†Wallace said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now , on the other hand, I can also post a story, if you are interested, concerning a study about acid rain reducing the amounts of methane produced in wetlands. This study was done by NASA and Open University in the United Kingdom.
You do remember when acid rain was the big concern, dontcha? Yaknow....... when it was considered the flavor of the week for doomsdayers.remember?
-
Originally posted by Angus
Ok Jackal find them.
Especially find me a graph that shows the North pole NOT melting.
Then take a glass of whisky, put an iscube in it, leave it at living room temperature, and an hour later proof to me that it's not melting/melted :D
Some things, such as that one, cannot be debated bud. Think of it, it's been there 50.000.000 years.....
Angus......it was related to temp charts.
Go back to the other thread and review if you wish.
As far as the pole goes...I think you actualy mean the ice there instead of the pole. :)
Ice melts in some places and grows in others over time. Has always been and I suppose always will be. The earths atmosphere has and always will go through climate changes and shifts in patterns.
BTW.......one good volcanic eruption could possibly give you more ice than you ever wanted.
Let`s wring our hands and gnash our teeth about that.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
I don't think you understand what that chart is.
It is core depth for years. That means the ice is now currently 2000 feet (or whatever) deep. The chart means "what depth do you have to core to get that year's emissions data". It's not that the ice is melting, it's that it is building and trapping environmental data with it. It won't be zero in 40,000 years, it's currently zero since that would be the surface of the ice. What the chart shows is that the ice actually accumulated faster over the last 4000 years. Though, that really means nothing in and of itself. The composition of the ice is what is actually scientific. They just showed an arbitrary chart with a downward trend and people think the icecap is melting because of it.
It's amazing how misinterpreted this chart has been in this thread. Unfortunately, it's also typical.
I posted the graph from a previously posted link with the question "what does this mean"? I wondered how you could determine the rate at which ice is melting based on drilling into it. Afterall, the melted ice doesn't stick around. I also figured, what the hell do I know hence the question. OK, here's what they concluded based on the "cold hard " eveidence (pun intended). Looks like a sharp temperature increase spkie about 15,000-20,000 years ago:
(http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/images/icecoretemp.GIF)
-
Nonono, Jackal, not getting away with this one:
"Go back to the other thread and review if you wish.
As far as the pole goes...I think you actualy mean the ice there instead of the pole.
Ice melts in some places and grows in others over time. Has always been and I suppose always will be"
This icecap wasn't that small for a long time, and as you see the melting is very fast. The Greenland Glacier is also melting. Our glaciers in Iceland are melting, but they're much smaller)
The southern pole is breaking off larger chunks than ever, but being thick and tough that one is going to hold a long time.
So where are there any major glaciers growing??????????????????
Show me. And show me a global temperature graph which has the opposite of the one I posted. Please :D
-
great post beet... Now you are saying that anyone who doesn't go along with the current "man will destroy the earth in a decade or two" mantra is a flat earther or...
that we didn't think man could land on the moon? I would venture to say that everyone here that was alive durring nasa's program that now doesn't believe all the "man made doom and glooom we have to do something NOW... run for your lives.. send us your money... the sky is falling"
We all KNEW it was possible to drive to the moon... You just needed a hot rod with enough horsepower and some guys who could drive. The mechanics and pragmatic here had no doubt but....
We also watched TIME magazine and all the "scientists" tell us we would be in the new ice age by the year 2000.... that mexico would have canada like temps and much of north america would be uninhabitable...
These same scientists told us that we would be completely out of oil by 1990 if we didn't do "something" in 1970 we did... we made crappy smog mobiles that got the worse milage in history.
We listened to scientific legends like carl nutjob sagan tell us on TV during the first gulf war that if the sadman lit even half of kuwaits oil fields on fire that it would destroy a "delicate" balance and we would experiance a "nuclear winter" that would cause mass starvation with 20-40% crop reductions....
We have lived long enough to not see the sky cars and the depletion of so many natural resources as predicted by these god like scientists... we have seen some of the greatest inventions of man made... not by scientists who couldn't even predict em... but by common engineers and tinkerers.
So noooo we don't think that everything that the gods of science tell us is true... they got the round earth thing right but contrary to popular opinion.... I wasn't around back then...
In my lifetime they have a real bad rep for chicken little stuff.
lazs
-
We can chart and graph this thing to death.
Like Skuzzy said..one side says "Yes it does"........the other says "No it doesn`t"
The point.it is not agreed upon by a long shot.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/22_1149773041_graph.jpg)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So where are there any major glaciers growing??????????????????
Hang around a few years, a few hundred years, possibly a few thousand years and see for yourself.
There has always been cycles and always will be until we find a more ingenius way to destroy ourself and the earth or at which time mother nature takes us out.
There is one thing for certain..and only one thing. No man, animal or computer can predict ,with any resemblence to accuracy , what our climate and weather is going to be on a long range, forecasted prediction. It just can`t be done due to the fact that what mother nature has in store and natural occurences can`t be factored in. As a matter of fact, the weather is not even being predicted with much accuracy on a small scale over very , very short periods of time.
I do remember times though, in days gone past, before all of the wealth of so called high tech gadgets, that local weather for short term was very, very accurate.
I think that global warming, even if it does exist, is the least of our worries. At the paths that mankind is taking in recent years, if left to continue, we will find much more neat ways to destroy ourself before anything such as thsi can take us out.
If not, like I said, such things as major volcanic eruptions and other factors that can`t be predicted accurately will probably change the whole picture.
It just can`t be predicted.......period.
-
And... I still challenge all you chicken littles to simply tell the rest of us what you think is the things that need to be done to prevent global warming...
Simply tell us all how many days/hours/seconds these modifications to human life will spare us from the inevitable doom of global warming.
Will we extend the doomsday to 2 decades and 3 hours instead of the two decades predicted if we continue our wicked ways?
Soooo what do we have to do and how much will it help..
or more to the point... what do the rest of us have to do?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
And... I still challenge all you chicken littles to simply tell the rest of us what you think is the things that need to be done to prevent global warming...
Lazs, you could start by reading the material to which I have provided links. There are also about 8 films on that BBC website, some of which show glaciers as they were ~30 years ago, and as they are now. One film is presented by a Swiss ski instructor, who shows photographs showing how the glaciers have melted over a period of years. Unfortunately the films on the BBC website are available only in the UK, but I'm sure there is a wealth of information in America. In fact one of the contributors to the BBC programme was Steve Pencala of Princeton University. But Lazs, you have to actually read/listen to what's being said, and give some credence to the fact that the scientists might just be right. I know how hard that is for you when it's not what you want to hear, but at least try.
-
Jeezz, Jackal.
Firstly your graph shows warming if anything, and over very short period.
Secondly it doesn't show the main mass of temperature, - the Oceans.
And this:
"So where are there any major glaciers growing??????????????????
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hang around a few years, a few hundred years, possibly a few thousand years and see for yourself. "
With the same rate the N-Pole will be gone way before that. Even in my or my children's lifespan. But...alas, you couldn't point at anything growing instead of what is getting melted. So much for that....
-
beetle.... no one here disputes that tempreture changes happen on this globe all throughout history and the we are experiancing a global climate change.... I would go so far as to say that we have never had a minute on this planet when we were not in the process of global warming or cooling.
You have not answered the question tho..... How much of the current climate cycle is man made and.... what would you suggest we do to curtail the human contribution?
And lastly... If we follow your suggestions... how much will that effect the natural cycle of changes..
Again... what should we be doing that we are not?
We have the most stringent pollution controls in the world here in the states.... What could we be doing differently? How much will it slow the global warming?
and... if the earth suddenly goes into a cooling trend (as was predicted in the 70's) should we then burn as much fossil fuel as possible to slow the trend?
can we slow global cooling too? Do we cause that?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
It doesn't really matter if you take a say 500 year look at the carbon cycle, as all the carbon that an oak tree takes up is returned to the cycle when it burns or rots. A pine tree only sequesters the carbon for a couple of centuries.
Carbon sequestration from the cycle happens when carboniferous stuff gets fossilized and put into the rock as coal, chalk, petroleum, and the other stuff we dig up and use.
The issue is what is the result of us taking this fossilized stuff out and put it back into the cycle.
Good point, but carbon, in of itself, is not a problem with the environment, unless there is 100% reclamation by man for use to return it to CO2.
Much of the carbon reclaimed is used in its raw form (how many tires are prodced each year? They contain a high percentage of carbon) and not as fuel. Plus, we have no way of reclaiming much of the carbon, right now, due to where it is located.
Or is this just one of those things we cannot figure out due to the sheer number of variables involved?
-
If man did not exist then the forests would burn in huge forest fires and release all the fossilized carbon...
lazs
-
lazs2:
"no one here disputes that tempreture changes happen on this globe all throughout history and the we are experiancing a global climate change"
Which is warming yes?
And yes, it is being disputed...
-
One would almost think we were discussing religion. ;)
-
Originally posted by Angus
Jeezz, Jackal.
Firstly your graph shows warming if anything
No Angus, as a matter of fact, it shows a rather drastic cooling in the later part. Before that ...cyclic.
Do I put any faith in the chart? Nope.
Do I put any faith in your chart? Nope.
I can give my 3 year old grandkid a crayon and a piece of paper and she can make a graph/chart.
Give me the money some of these cats are being fed by different groups/orgs and I`ll drag up statistics, charts, predictions, etc. to make them show any damn thing they wish it to show.
One side says yea, the other nay. So called top scientists on each side.
With the same rate the N-Pole will be gone way before that. Even in my or my children's lifespan.
You shooting for the newage Notradomus position or what?
There is no way, absolutely no way that that can be accurately predicted or forecasted. Too many unknown factors. Volcanic eruptions, nuclear explosions etc. Unknowns. Unknown and purely unpredictable by anyone or anything.
But...alas, you couldn't point at anything growing instead of what is getting melted. So much for that....
You want picture drawings.......maybe a certified letter........past weather cycle history........or what?
Like I said..hang around for a while. The earth`s atmosphere and weather cycles have been constantly changing as far back as recorded history. Ebb/tide........I don`t see what is so difficult about that to understand. Do some research if you don`t beleive it.
Things could drasticaly change today.......tommorow......... ...next week. We could just as easily be thrown into the previous so called prediction of an Iceage. (Which some are still standing by)
As I have said, there is not but one positive you can count on. That being that nobody or nothing can predict what will happen in the future with any degree of accuracy. It just can`t be done.
If you wish to wring your hands and gnash your teeth agonizing over doomsday theories. So be it. There are more than enough out there to keep you busy. What about the acid rain doomsdayers of the past as mentioned in the cow fart post? :) My belief is the so called global warming theory is way down on the list of things to worry about.
Asteroids on the way to collide with earth..............the sun is exploding......the moon is leaving orbit.........space aliens are going to invade and use us for a food source....................... ........................
OH my! I can`t take it! I`m getting my tinfoil hat now! You can find me under the bed waiting for ............................. ..well maybe not........think I`ll grab a cold one and enjoy life. It`s too short anyway.
-
Lukster's graph showing the Vostok Ice Core Temperature Differences over the last 200,000 years point out a couple of interesting facts.
The graphs show two large spikes in temperatures marking the end of two ice ages. The heat spike shown at approximately the 140,000 year mark is FAR higher than the one that ended the last ice age and ushered in the relatively warm period allowing the rise of human civilization.
Gee...I wonder how much the continental glaciers receded during that spike at the 140,000 year mark. Do ya think the level of recession could POSSIBLY match the rate of melt currently being blamed on human environmental impact?
More importantly...what did our ancient ancestors do to cause that previous global spike in temperatures?
-
The earth HAS gone through a lot of changes. Hit by meteors. Iceages. Polar rolls. Swift warmings. No debate.
FUY Jackal, the Iced areas on the North has been charted quite a lot for obvious reasons....transport. Look at the decline since 1979!!! The thing has been there for 50 million years, and it schrunk that much since 1979.
Now give some crayons to yer kid :D
-
Originally posted by lazs2
beetle.... no one here disputes that tempreture changes happen on this globe all throughout history and the we are experiancing a global climate change.... I would go so far as to say that we have never had a minute on this planet when we were not in the process of global warming or cooling.
You have not answered the question tho..... How much of the current climate cycle is man made and.... what would you suggest we do to curtail the human contribution?
And lastly... If we follow your suggestions... how much will that effect the natural cycle of changes..
Again... what should we be doing that we are not?
Oh come on, Lazs! Don't make me type it all out yet again!! I've told you before. Yes I know that the earth's temperature has fluctuated over the millennia. I have already told you that one way to reduce global warming would be to crank up the nuclear programme. Granted, it's not cheap and there's the problem of nuclear waste products, but Finland is doing just that - and boosting the proportion of electricity generated by nuclear power from 26% to 36%. I provided a link to the story last time, but you clearly didn't read it and I'm not going to go hunting for it all over again. I don't know what proportion of the total global warming is man-made and what is natural, but the point if irrelevant. The predictions that I have seen are based on the continued emission of man-made CO2 at the current rate, which is set to increase dramatically over the next 25 years. You're still clinging to the Category-1 counter-argument, which is to say that if there's ANY natural global warming, the entire problem can be blamed on that, and we needn't worry about the ~trillion tonnes of CO2 that man will pump into the atmosphere in the next ~40 years. Refer to my earlier posts ^^ it's all there, Lazs. We have the most stringent pollution controls in the world here in the states.... What could we be doing differently? How much will it slow the global warming?
Oh no, not this AGAIN! LAZS!!! Pay attention!! I've told you about five times already that your "pollution controls" do not address the problem of global warming. Your cars used to emit oxides of sulphur, carbon monoxide (CO), and oxides of Nitrogen, all of which are poisonous to humans but none of which is a greenhouse gas. Your pollution controls have dealt with the direct threat to humans, and the 3-way cat on your car exhaust converts these toxins to CO2, water vapour and nitrogen - none of which is poisonous to humans, but all of which are greenhouse gases.
Now Lazs, I want you to READ this. I want you to assimilate and inwardly digest. This is absolutely the last time I'm going to type all this out for you.
-
Originally posted by Angus
The earth HAS gone through a lot of changes. Hit by meteors. Iceages. Polar rolls. Swift warmings. No debate.
FUY Jackal, the Iced areas on the North has been charted quite a lot for obvious reasons....transport. Look at the decline since 1979!!! The thing has been there for 50 million years, and it schrunk that much since 1979.
Now give some crayons to yer kid :D
It`s grandkid angus. :)
Thanks for making my point. So the ice has shrunk........cyclic thing, huh? Earth is changing. Weather patterns are changing. Atmosphere is changing.........going through cycles ....just as it always has.
You, I or no scientists or group of scientists, no matter how much they are paid can predict with any accuracy what is going to happen. It`s just an unkown because there are too many unknowns that can`t be factored in.
One nuclear explosion, one major volcanic eruption, one collision with earth or any number of things can and very well will change the course of things. At least it has been that way in the past recorded history.
You seem hung up on the ice melting aspect . Any of the above could increase ice masses in a very short time. I`m willing to bet you would be one of the first to agonize and lament over such an event. It would do you just about as much good as lamenting, agonizing and gnashing teeth over the global warming theory.
What about an iceage? Would that suit you more....or less?
There are so many unknowns and so many things that cannot be factored in that it is impossible to say what is going to happen in the future.
For all I know, or anyone else for that matter, someone could come up with a way to manipulate weather, earth cycles, atmosphere, reduce pollution, stop wars, supply free beer......................... ......who knows/
Impossible??? That`s what they told the Wright brothers. :)
P.S.: Beet seems not to want to go into the ridiculousness of the contribution of cow farts to the so called global warming issue any longer. I wonder why............:)
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Good point, but carbon, in of itself, is not a problem with the environment, unless there is 100% reclamation by man for use to return it to CO2.
Much of the carbon reclaimed is used in its raw form (how many tires are prodced each year? They contain a high percentage of carbon) and not as fuel. Plus, we have no way of reclaiming much of the carbon, right now, due to where it is located.
Or is this just one of those things we cannot figure out due to the sheer number of variables involved?
Oh no... if you have a supercomputer, you put all this data in and the irrefutable truth comes out.
The latest models have anti GIGO buffer technology.
-
LOL Holden.
Upshot is this. I really do not see anyone on the planet as being intelligent enough, having access to all the variables involved, having the time, nor having the tools to be able to figure it out with any level of precision.
Some places are warmer, others are cooler. How about the polar ice caps melting due to higher levels of exposure to ultra-violet radiation from the Sun, due to the ozone depletion in those areas of the globe?
-
Ehem...Jackal...get clear on what you said:
"Ice melts in some places and grows in others over time"
Or rather, clear out this question:
Is the globe warming or NOT?
If it's NOT, your statement means that the ice should be growing elsewhere in the same proportion.
If it is, then you agree that the Globe is warming.
-
Originally posted by Curval
But, why are you pointing this out to me specifically? I wasn't the one who presented it as "proof" that the ice cap is melting and that it has been doing so naturally for tens of thousands of years. All I did was to take that as the reason (as it was presented) and tried to show how difficult it was to actually get any meanful information out of it.
Maybe because you've written the longest diatribe on it? Spent the most time over evaluating a simple chart with a completely misguided assertion?For the fifth or sixth time...I'm not a scientist. I don't claim to be an expert at any of this stuff.
That's a real convenient go-to card. Why are you participating in this thread at all? Does the subject strike a chord with you? Is it something you wish to be true? I mean... really... it's as if you felt you had to say something.It isn't amazing that it has been misinterpreted at all. It IS typical though. Most of the "research" presented in this thread was quickly googled and used to promote a side of the argument. It is one reason why I didn't present ANY backup to my opinion.
Opinion? You observed a chart and completely misread it. That's like having an opinion that the color red tastes like a vacuum. I did not present any data, I just opened my eyes a bit and actually looked at numbers being represented and thought "that doesn't make any sense" and then went to the site and spent time reading it.
For an issue that's so critical, I'm seeing alot of "I googled it...", "I saw a special on T.V....", "I couldn't be bothered to read the text next to the chart...." type stuff going on. You just happened to be the pinacle of it in this thread.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Ehem...Jackal...get clear on what you said:
"Ice melts in some places and grows in others over time"
Or rather, clear out this question:
Is the globe warming or NOT?
If it's NOT, your statement means that the ice should be growing elsewhere in the same proportion.
If it is, then you agree that the Globe is warming.
Even though you posted and reposted it yourself you seem to be missing something. Do you see this part or is it not visible on your machine? -->"grows in others over time." "Over time".....you see that? Hope that helps. :)
Is the globe warming or NOT?
(requoted to follow a new fad :))
Warmer in some places, colder in others. Just as it`s always been.
From winter 2005.
"Elsewhere Wednesday, the weather service said record lows included 28 below zero at Drummond, Mont., where the date’s previous record was 21 below in 1971; 26 below at Seeley Lake, Mont.; 25 below at Laramie, Wyo., tying a 1978 reading; 17 below at Alliance, Neb.; 19 below at Cedar Rapids, Iowa; and 3 below at Lincoln, Ill.
Iowa City checked in at a balmy -12 last night."
And
"Record Low Temperatures in Parts of U.S.
Dec 07 2:02 PM US/Eastern
Email this story
By CATHERINE TSAI
Associated Press Writer
DENVER
Bitterly cold air poured southward across the nation's midsection Wednesday, dropping temperatures to record lows from Montana to Illinois.
The mercury dived to a record 45 below at West Yellowstone, Mont., the frequently cold spot at the west entrance to Yellowstone National Park, the National Weather Service said. The old record for Dec. 7 was 39 below, set in 1927. "
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe it`s the predicted iceage prophecy coming to pass. :aok
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
How about the polar ice caps melting due to higher levels of exposure to ultra-violet radiation from the Sun, due to the ozone depletion in those areas of the globe?
Could be that they are just melting for the same reasons that the caps on Mars are. The is going thru a hot flash presently. Apparently the sun is a menopausal female.
-
Scientists have a habit of never agreeing on anything. Or at the very least finding ways to cover their tracks if shown to be wrong.
Surprised that with all of the discussion on things effecting man , weather, atmosphere and environment that either this or Hiroshima hasn`t came up yet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chernobyl's After-Effects Not as Dire as Predicted, Report Says
By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL,
International Herald Tribune
Published: September 5, 2005
Nearly 20 years after the huge nuclear accident in Chernobyl, a new scientific report has found that its after-effects on health and the environment have proved not so dire as scientists had been previously predicted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you think? Think either this explosion or Hiroshima had any noticeable effect on the atmosphere, weather, etc.?
So....scientists predicted one thing, then changed their minds.
Others predicted nearly the opposite.
Who`s funding who? Who wants what and who is doing what in coming up with scientific data to show one theory while on the reverse other scientists are coming up with data to show otherwise.
You think who is funding who has any bearing on outcomes?
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Lukster's graph showing the Vostok Ice Core Temperature Differences over the last 200,000 years point out a couple of interesting facts.
It also shows that warming cycle occurs about every 100,000 years (which BTW is believed to be caused by changes in the earth's orbit), which is about right if you compare the data which goes back further, but the present warming is happening just mere 10,000 years after last cooling period.
So, why is it out of whack so suddenly? Just a short term spike? There have been local variations like Little Ice Age and others, but today warming is global.
I got my hands on Pentagon global warming study and those guys deffinately aren't pro environment. Their main concern is melting ice cap which is important for subs operations. Their conclusion is that north ice cap is shrinking at accelerated rate due to increased surface air and water temps and cause of the increase are greenhouse gases.
The main contributor to greenhouse effect is water vapor, which represents about 3/4 of all greenhouse contributors. CO2 is next with share of about 1/6, followed by ozone and all others.
The fact is, we can not directly influence amount of water vapor, but we can influence it indirectly with controlling the levels of CO2, which is next in the line of.
Increase in CO2 can rise the temperature which will cause creation of more water vapor which again will rice temperature which will create even more water vapor, etc.
Ice core samples show amount of CO2 being pretty stable over the last 10,000 years and its medium was about 270ppm with spikes to about 300ppm.
Those levels have increased to todays value of 380ppm since beginning of industrial age, with 90% of increase after WW2.
In the recent past (million years ago until present), spikes in CO2 levels were mainly due to volcanic activity.
Today, burning of fosil fuels alone releases about 6 billion tons of CO2 per year, in comparison, volcanos release 200 million tons per year.
To argue about existance of warming and its causes is silly. Plenty of hard data.
To argue about what can we do is also silly. We won't do anything, it's human nature, besides, whatever we can do, wouldn't be nearly enough to reverse the warming, the best you could hope for is just a slowdown.
With current climate models, real drama starts sometime after year 2100. I'll be long gone til then...
-
Well....if it actualy does come to pass that global warming actualy does exist and does get to the point of being a reasonable threat....................... we can all get rich.
Simply buy up the majority of stock in the fur trade industry..................and nuke a major volcano. Instant Iceage. Angus could rest easy then. :)
Of course such an action would undoubtly create a chain reaction of related, but unpredictable events which would cause other problems that could be lamented and worried about.............
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Could be that they are just melting for the same reasons that the caps on Mars are. The is going thru a hot flash presently. Apparently the sun is a menopausal female.
Hehe.
Well, we do know for a fact the ozone layer has been depleted over the polar ice caps at both poles. Seems to me, more UV, more meltage.
The problem I have with virtually every study I have seen/read is they either do not list all the variables they included in the study, or they list them and they are falling way short of all the potential variables.
A study looking a CO2 increases, and nothing else, is rather useless. One that adds water vapor is still useless. There are just too many variables involved for any current study to make an absolute statement about what is going on and way it is happening.
-
Jackal, you're hanging on a straw. It was for instance very cold here in --- may.
So, oranges and apples. To melt half of the N-Pole it takes more than some "little" curves. But you cling on little ones, or local stuff. If that isn't enough you get into curves that are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years. But what we are talking is the half of the N-Polar cap melting away in the lifespan of a human. That is pretty fast. While not being the biggest chunk of ice on the globe, it makes a statement for what IS actually happening. No kid with crayons can change that.
"Is the globe warming or NOT?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(requoted to follow a new fad )
Warmer in some places, colder in others. Just as it`s always been.
Ballocks mate,,,,,ballocks.
-
Mars is a different story. Its core cooled down and magnetic field went poof. Nothing to shield atmosphere from solar radiation...
As for the Ozone Layer, it's in stratosphere and filters UV which does not warm up like IR does, so the holes above the caps letting through UV are hardly responsible for any melting.
-
Originally posted by 2bighorn
Mars is a different story. Its core cooled down and magnetic field went poof. Nothing to shield atmosphere from solar radiation...
As for the Ozone Layer, it's in stratosphere and filters UV which does not warm up like IR does, so the holes above the caps letting through UV are hardly responsible for any melting.
But the core was cold 100 years ago, and yet the caps were robust.
It is interesting that Mars, Earth, and Jupiter are all experiencing warming but apparently by completely unrelated causes.
Except maybe the sun.
-
Originally posted by 2bighorn
It also shows that warming cycle occurs about every 100,000 years
Slow down now. One cycle (if it is that) isn't enough to establish a pattern. The only thing I think we can safely assume from that study is that our climate does change without mankind's influence over time.
-
Originally posted by Angus
(requoted to follow a new fad )
Warmer in some places, colder in others. Just as it`s always been.
Ballocks mate,,,,,ballocks.
Uh, do you live all over the world? Last summer we had low temperatures during the summer here in Texas. We had record rainfall the year before combined with moderate temperatures as well. Heck, it felt like we went from Spring to Fall that year.
For the last 5 or 6 years, we have had very moderate summers and winters here. This year looks like its giong to be a hot one though. But that is what it does here. We have horrible summers and winters for some period of time. and then go into a period of mild weather for some period of time. Odd thing is the last mild period was milder than any previous period.
-
Originally posted by 2bighorn
Mars is a different story. Its core cooled down and magnetic field went poof. Nothing to shield atmosphere from solar radiation...
As for the Ozone Layer, it's in stratosphere and filters UV which does not warm up like IR does, so the holes above the caps letting through UV are hardly responsible for any melting.
The holes above the caps are many, many times larger than they should be and are continuing to expand. The North side of Earth now shows the ozone layer non-existent well into Canada.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
A study looking a CO2 increases, and nothing else, is rather useless. One that adds water vapor is still useless. There are just too many variables involved for any current study to make an absolute statement about what is going on and way it is happening.
The current theory is supported by known variables and data and it's the best (for now) science can come up with.
If I have to pick between science, politics, special interests groups or religion, I'll pick the science when it comes to global warming.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Jackal, you're hanging on a straw. It was for instance very cold here in --- may.
So, oranges and apples. To melt half of the N-Pole it takes more than some "little" curves. But you cling on little ones, or local stuff. If that isn't enough you get into curves that are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years. But what we are talking is the half of the N-Polar cap melting away in the lifespan of a human. That is pretty fast. While not being the biggest chunk of ice on the globe, it makes a statement for what IS actually happening. No kid with crayons can change that.
"Is the globe warming or NOT?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(requoted to follow a new fad )
Warmer in some places, colder in others. Just as it`s always been.
Ballocks mate,,,,,ballocks.
ROFLMAO
Angus I am beginning to beleive that you have a polar ice cap fetish. Sheesh.
I`m clinging to local ones? You are the one hung up on the friggin ice caps.
So the cap is melting. You expected it to stay the same for eternity or what?
Cycles,shifts, changes in patterns, heck, changes in the earth`s very makeup
and configuration it`s very self. All very natural occurences in the scheme of things concerning the earth`s history.
It really doesn`t matter one way or the other. What lies in the future cannot be predicted. That is the only thing 100% certain.
If we ,or our future generations ,still exist.........well,.... we will exist. If not, there will be noone left to agonize or wring their hands over it.
I`d suggest maybe a good shot of Ole #7 over the rocks might ease your worried mind.
Might want to drink it in a walk-in cooling unit though. Otherwise...........the ice might melt. :rofl
-
Originally posted by 2bighorn
The current theory is supported by known variables and data and it's the best (for now) science can come up with.
If I have to pick between science, politics, special interests groups or religion, I'll pick the science when it comes to global warming.
Climate modeling and simulation do not form a science in the classical sense. We cannot formulate a hypothesis and then proceed to test it in the laboratory. We have a complicated system with only a finite history of empirical information about it – far from enough, in fact.
The range of uncertainty is not an easy thing to assess. It seems to be mainly derived from an intercomparison of the models produced by different scientific groups around the world. This is a very poor means of arriving at the real uncertainty, since the models are rather similar to one another and probably even more like each other than like nature.
Hence, one is forced to the familiar procedure of parameterization and the inevitable fudge factors. We simply cannot get around it.
--Dr. Gerald North, Professor of Meteorology and Oceanography at Texas A&M
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Maybe because you've written the longest diatribe on it? Spent the most time over evaluating a simple chart with a completely misguided assertion?
Or....you simply jumped on the usual suspects bandwagon and attacked me instead of the person who posted it.
That's a real convenient go-to card. Why are you participating in this thread at all? Does the subject strike a chord with you? Is it something you wish to be true? I mean... really... it's as if you felt you had to say something. Opinion? You observed a chart and completely misread it. That's like having an opinion that the color red tastes like a vacuum. I did not present any data, I just opened my eyes a bit and actually looked at numbers being represented and thought "that doesn't make any sense" and then went to the site and spent time reading it.
Good for you mini...I didn't go to the site. I had an opinion early in the thread and presented it. I didn't think googling a number of sites was worth my time or a pre-requiste for posting.
For an issue that's so critical, I'm seeing alot of "I googled it...", "I saw a special on T.V....", "I couldn't be bothered to read the text next to the chart...." type stuff going on. You just happened to be the pinacle of it in this thread.
Really...I am the pinnacle huh? LOL I presented NONE of it Mini...NONE. I responded to two of them..the one you are yammering on about and one from lazs. You just wanted to show how clever you are, but instead of going after the person who posted it you came after me. No biggie...I'm a big boy, but please try and read some of the fluff that so many others have presented and then reconsider who is at the pinnacle.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
The holes above the caps are many, many times larger than they should be and are continuing to expand. The North side of Earth now shows the ozone layer non-existent well into Canada.
Ozone layer shields from UV radiation which in itself doesn't heat anything.
Infrared radiation is responsible for heating up the earth. So called greenhouse gasses are filtering out part of it, at the same time they are trapping the heat.
It's an act of balance and if that gets broken (for what ever reason), the climate will change.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Climate modeling and simulation do not form a science in the classical sense. We cannot formulate a hypothesis and then proceed to test it in the laboratory. We have a complicated system with only a finite history of empirical information about it – far from enough, in fact.
The range of uncertainty is not an easy thing to assess. It seems to be mainly derived from an intercomparison of the models produced by different scientific groups around the world. This is a very poor means of arriving at the real uncertainty, since the models are rather similar to one another and probably even more like each other than like nature.
Hence, one is forced to the familiar procedure of parameterization and the inevitable fudge factors. We simply cannot get around it.
Thats for climate modeling, ie what happens if...
I'm talking about current state and rate of change, not "what will happen if we change this" hypothesis.
-
Originally posted by 2bighorn
Thats for climate modeling, ie what happens if...
I'm talking about current state and rate of change, not "what will happen if we change this" hypothesis.
If we do not know how it works then how are we supposed to control it?
-
The holes in the ozon layers have nothing to do with global warming.
They may have something to do with this debate, for 20 - 30 years ago, there was a big fight about whether there would be holes in the ozon layer because of human related pollution.
And guess what...didn't have to wait long.
And Jackal:
"Angus I am beginning to beleive that you have a polar ice cap fetish. Sheesh.
I`m clinging to local ones? You are the one hung up on the friggin ice caps.
So the cap is melting. You expected it to stay the same for eternity or what?"
So,,,,the capS are actually melting. It's because of the climate getting warmer, at least just up there....huh?
Local? Well, excuse me, but we are talking about very big areas here.
Eternity? 100 years is very small on the scale on millions. And my chart only showed some 25 years or so!
FYI, the polar Caps melting DEMONSTRATE a climate change that cannot be debated..there..
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
If we do not know how it works then how are we supposed to control it?
I've never said we have to control emissions in order to control climate.
I'm just convinced by science (and my own experience) that there is warming happening, that it's not part of regular cycle and that is at least partially caused by emissions.
How it'll end, or what to do I really don't care, nor I wanna change my lifestyle for something nobody knows if it'll work, or if it's even possible (yeah, I'm selfish).
-
Originally posted by Angus
The holes in the ozon layers have nothing to do with global warming.
They may have something to do with this debate, for 20 - 30 years ago, there was a big fight about whether there would be holes in the ozon layer because of human related pollution.
And guess what...didn't have to wait long.
Damn hairspray! I told em. :rofl
It has also been suggested that the depletion in the ozone layer was due to changes on the sun`s surface. Yes/No -You do/you don`t-Corky Romano. :)
So,,,,the capS are actually melting. It's because of the climate getting warmer, at least just up there....huh?
I`m not having much of a melting problem here Angus. I feel for your loss. :)
Local? Well, excuse me, but we are talking about very big areas here.
Make up your mind. Us local cats just can`t go from watching bikinis to icecaps in a heartbeat yaknow.
Eternity? 100 years is very small on the scale on millions. And my chart only showed some 25 years or so!
Exactly! In the scheme of things concerning the changes in the earth`s conditions, trends and changes...well, everything, nothing can be based, proven or disproven on such a short term scale.
And, once again, there are too many unpredictables/unknowns for anyone or anything to accurately predict the future........of anything. It all can change drasticaly in a heartbeat.
FYI, the polar Caps melting DEMONSTRATE a climate change that cannot be debated..there..
What that DEMONSTRATES, Angus, is that some ice is melting. Ice has been know to melt before. You realize that, right?
The cause of the ice melting can be debated for as long as one wishs to debate it.
The important thing is...noone, group of people, nor any machine,computer, chart, graph or whatever can predict what is going to happen in the future.
-
Or....you simply jumped on the usual suspects bandwagon and attacked me instead of the person who posted it.
I think you're greatly underestimating how funny your response to that was. I also think it's "persecution complex" day. I'm a bit curious as to exactly what bandwagon I jumped on there.Good for you mini...I didn't go to the site. I had an opinion early in the thread and presented it. I didn't think googling a number of sites was worth my time or a pre-requiste for posting.
Where did I say anything about your oppinion "earlier" in the thread. Jeezus man.... WOULD YOU TAKE A SECOND TO ACTUALLY READ THINGS.
Really...I am the pinnacle huh? LOL I presented NONE of it Mini...NONE. I responded to two of them..the one you are yammering on about and one from lazs. You just wanted to show how clever you are, but instead of going after the person who posted it you came after me. No biggie...I'm a big boy, but please try and read some of the fluff that so many others have presented and then reconsider who is at the pinnacle.
You contributed several paragraphs to a single chart that you knew absolutely nothing about. I'd still call that the "pinacle" in this thread. You can use several metrics to back it up, if you're ever willing to take a minute to think about something before typing.
-
"I think you're greatly underestimating how funny your response to that was. I also think it's "persecution complex" day. I'm a bit curious as to exactly what bandwagon I jumped on there."
It wasn't supposed to be funny. The bandwagon being taking the opposite view of anything that Beet1e or I say. It isn't an important point but I felt like making it. We rarely agree in these types of threads Mini...if I see you responding to me I am generally sure it is a negative response.
Where did I say anything about your oppinion "earlier" in the thread. Jeezus man.... WOULD YOU TAKE A SECOND TO ACTUALLY READ THINGS
Nope, sorry, it is YOU who needs to read. You said this:
"Opinion? You observed a chart and completely misread it."
The whole "opinion" thing had NOTHING to do with the chart. I was simply responding to the chart (admittedly incorrectly viewed). My OPINION was presented earlier. Please don't twist my words.
You contributed several paragraphs to a single chart that you knew absolutely nothing about. I'd still call that the "pinacle" in this thread. You can use several metrics to back it up, if you're ever willing to take a minute to think about something before typing.
Several paragraphs eh? Again, stop trying to frame it as if that one response was the be-all and end-all with respect to ignorant postings. There is post after post of it going on here. You singled out mine...even when lukster posted it and then the two of us conversed about it. Obviously he misinterpreted it too...but no comment on that. I'm not surprised though. It quite normal.
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #2
-
See Rule #2
-
See Rule #5
-
Blame me for the damn chart. I linked it without reading the whole article. While I was not the first to imply that it meant the ice was melting, it did at first appear to me that's what it meant. All of us make mistakes and we learn and move on. Few, if any of us here are experts on the subject and even the experts cannot agree among themselves.
-
See rule #2
self edited by Holden
-
lukster, thanks for that, I read it wrong too. No biggie.
-
Originally posted by lukster
. All of us make mistakes and we learn and move on. Few, if any of us here are experts on the subject and even the experts cannot agree among themselves.
Give that man a ceeegar. :aok
-
Ok, again, Jackal:
"I`m not having much of a melting problem here Angus. I feel for your loss. "
In the short run, my area could well do with a little warming. Here's where it first starts ;)
Not sure how much warming your place can take, but it'll get there nicely after a short while, after all, this is global. Oh, me maybe bad, it's just LOCAL warming, and just near the poles.
Read up about the predicted effects of polar melting on the climates in the US. Well, of course it's all conspiring government fed scientists who say-so-whatever, but bear in mind that they did predict both the ozon layer holes and the caps melting. Must have been a lucky dice :D
-
Originally posted by Angus
Read up about the predicted effects of polar melting on the climates in the US.
OK Angus...........I`ll do my best to work that in, but I gotta tell ya.......I`m pretty well backed up here on my reading list in the doomsday department. First of all I have to work my way through this stack of books predicting the coming Iceage. After that I guess I will start on reading the books concerning the predictions of the super volcanoes of Yellowstone erupting.(Of course in the long run they just end up with another Iceage, but hey.....)
Then on the list.....I have a number of reads concerning the coming total nuclear war which undoubtedly will wipe out 99.9 percent of the earth`s population.
After that, I`m in a little of a frenzy over what should be on the list as most important. I mean we got the books on the earth`s collisions, the books dealing with Cali sluffing off into the sea. ( That one really concerns me because I`m afraid when it happens, if there are many survivors, they will want to migrate to Texas and very few of them are like Laz. :) )
Let`s see..there are numerous books concerning the total population being wiped out by a virus or superflu. Then there are the books concerning the imminent threat of the Sun exploding/changing and frying us all.
Wheeew....man I gotta tell ya....there are just too many to list. OH! OH! I almost forgot the ones dealing with the predictions of London becoming a new fishing reef.
It may be a while bud. :)
but bear in mind that they did predict both the ozon layer holes and the caps melting. Must have been a lucky dice
Like I said.....I warned em about the damn hairspray....noone listens.....and I always stood next to the guy with the "Repent Now..The End Is Near!" sign too.
Predictions are actualy made before an event is allready taking place.
Card counters and fight riggers. They never make it in Vegas. :rolleyes:
-
Jackal:
Maybe you had your nose full of doomsday preachers. I must confess that I've been chuckling about some of the stuff promoted and recently I stumbled across a website that doubtlessly is suicide inspiring!
(armageddon.com?)
But don't get lost in the jungle bro. If you try to hair out what's actual, well, you'll see some things that have a foot in them.
Ok, meteors wiped out almost all life on earth more than once, Us humans could theoretically at the push of a button wipe out almost all advanced lifeforms on the planet, and, importantly, screw up the planet's global status with our until-now-unknown interference.
I'm not getting there. (Although we could definately have a jolly good time with what-if's ;)). But what I see through the mess, is that the bloody blue planet actually seems to be warming, and since it was predicted pretty accurately and seems to hold water, I honestly think that it is a fact not to be discarded but concerned and looked into.
That is also the case, the established "fact" is quite well established in the western world with the USA for some reason being sceptic.
A new conspiracy theory perhaps :D
-
OK Angus..now you`ve done it.
You broke my scheduled reading list. :)
Thought you might find this interesting.
Much to the chagrin of one of our more prominent posters, I`m not much of a link poster due to the fact that I don`t go through the hassle to find out what is embedded on these site.......so I just cut `N paste. :)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Polar history shows melting ice-cap may be a natural cycle
The Scotsman | March 9, 2005
By IAN JOHNSTON
THE melting of sea ice at the North Pole may be the result of a centuries-old natural cycle and not an indicator of man-made global warming, Scottish scientists have found.
After researching the log-books of Arctic explorers spanning the past 300 years, scientists believe that the outer edge of sea ice may expand and contract over regular periods of 60 to 80 years. This change corresponds roughly with known cyclical changes in atmospheric temperature.
The finding opens the possibility that the recent worrying changes in Arctic sea ice are simply the result of standard cyclical movements, and not a harbinger of major climate change.
The amount of sea ice is currently near its lowest point in the cycle and should begin to increase within about five years.
As a result, Dr Chad Dick, a Scottish scientist working at the Norwegian Polar Institute in Tromso, believes the next five to ten years will be a critical period in our understanding of sea ice and the impact, if any, of long-term global warming.
Concern has been expressed recently that animals such as polar bears could become extinct because sea ice is disappearing. The new research by Dr Dick and a colleague, Dr Dimitry Divine, gives rise to hopes the melting will stop soon.
However, Dr Dick warned that if the ice carried on melting, it would mean that man-made global warming had disrupted the natural process - with potentially disastrous results.
He said: "Cycles of 60 to 80 years have been identified before in atmospheric temperature records in the Arctic. The old records that we recovered from ships’ logs and other sources may show that similar cycles are present in sea ice.
"I’ve this gut feeling that within ten years from now we’ll know for certain whether we’re losing sea ice long term or whether it’s coming back.
"If it doesn’t come back it shows we are in serious trouble. Sea ice has a whole lot of effects on climate and it is pretty important."
Sea ice protects the northern coastlines of Canada, Russia and the United States from erosion caused by storms. If it melted, waves crashing on to the shoreline could release vast stores of carbon dioxide stored in permafrost, which would increase global warming still further.
Dr Dick said the research did not suggest that global warming was not a reality.
"You couldn’t say, ‘The sea ice is coming back so therefore there’s no global warming’. It’s never going to be that simple," he said. "But the question now is the extent of global warming, how fast it will happen and whether there are any surprises on the way.
"We know there is warming and that it’s caused by humans, but it will be a great relief to many people if the ice comes back as opposed to going away."
He added that some people might be pleased to see less ice in the Arctic as it would finally open up the North-west Passage trade route - sought by many of the explorers whose log-books were used in the study - between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.
"If the sea ice continues to disappear it could cut something like 5,000km off the sea route from Europe to Japan and China. There are people who think that’s a good thing," Dr Dick said.
"Humans are great at adapting to change. We might lose polar bears and some species of seal, but most people don’t worry about that, it doesn’t affect them. And if it means their stereo can be shipped from China more quickly, they are happy with that."
Among the hundreds of mariners whose records were examined by Dr Dick were the noted Scottish arctic explorer Sir John Ross and his nephew Sir James Clark Ross.
Sir James discovered the magnetic North Pole in 1831 after earlier accompanying his uncle to the Arctic in 1818. He then began to explore the Antarctic, giving his name to the Ross Sea, Ross Island and the Ross Ice Shelf.
The polar explorer Clive Waghorn, who lives in Limekilns, Fife, said the idea of regular periodic changes in sea ice was "entirely credible".
"You read stories of the old whalers and sailors in the Arctic in some seasons coming back with no catches at all because they weren’t able to get as far north as they could in other seasons," he said.
"Whalers were always rather secretive about where they had been because they didn’t want people knowing where they had been if they had a successful trip, but I would say as the record [of log-books] goes, it’s pretty objective."
He said he shuddered to think what would happen if the Arctic lost its sea ice.
"I think ecologically it would be a bit of a disaster. It would also open the Arctic up for mineral and oil exploration, which would be another disaster," Mr Waghorn said.
In January, the international Climate Change Task Force warned that global warming could reach a "point of no return" in ten to 20 years by which time atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations would be so great that any attempt to reduce them would be futile.
Robin Harper, a Scottish Green Party MSP, said that while he hoped Arctic sea ice would return, it could actually be a false sign of hope that global warming was not as serious as previously thought.
"All it would prove is that global warming doesn’t affect that particular cycle," he said.
"There would be no reason for us to be complacent if it comes back."
Gulf Stream could be ‘switched off’
THERE are fears that the disappearance of polar ice could have a catastrophic effect on the world’s climate.
The presence of large areas of ice helps to moderate the world’s temperature by reflecting the sun’s rays and keeping the planet cool.
As the ice sheets reduce, this exposes more areas of water, which absorb more heat from the sun, warming the planet and reducing areas of ice still further.
Perhaps the biggest fear is that cold melt-water could "switch off" the Gulf Stream and even the Earth’s system of hot and cold currents, known as the Ocean Conveyor.
The Gulf Stream has a major effect on Britain’s climate, allowing palm trees to grow on the west coast of Scotland. Without it, Scotland’s climate would be more like Canada’s.
The Ocean Conveyor has stopped flowing in the past - 8,200 years ago and 12,700 years ago - in an event associated with the start of an ice age. Melting sea ice will not have an impact on sea levels as it already displaces its own weight of water. Large land-based ice sheets on Greenland and in the Antarctic are the main sources of concern.
Huge quantities of carbon - a major greenhouse gas - are stored frozen on the ocean floor and in permafrost in Siberia and Canada particularly. Melting ice would release this into the atmosphere, further increasing global warming.
This is one reason why scientists fear the world could reach a "tipping point" in about ten to 20 years time when we will not be able to reverse global warming.
Sea ice has a calming effect on the water, as waves cannot travel very far. This protects northern Arctic circle coastlines from erosion which would release carbon stored in permafrost.
In a warmer world, more water from the sea will evaporate. Greater evaporation actually helps increase the amount of sea ice as fresh water running off the land freezes more easily than salt water in the sea.
But, as always in climate studies, the situation is complex, because while some of the water vapour will form clouds which reflect sunlight, it also helps to retain warmth, particularly at night.
-
I remember reading up on how Curling was invented in Scottland. I actually looked it up because that seemed such an odd combination. I suggest most people actually interested in this subject of climate variations look it up too.
Or you could just sit and talk about a .jpg file.
-
Another very odd thing about the polar icecap data...
Doesn't that spike correspond somewhat to the age of the earth as traced back in the bible?
-
beet... go ahead and repeat the things you have said they (none of them ) answer my questions to you.
I asked you how much we as humans were contributing to global climate changes.... you sort of answered that... you say that we are increasing co2 at a certain rate... you seem to admit that if we managed to double c02 (100 years at current rates) that we would increase temp around the globe maybe one degree...
That is of course.... if nothing else happened... if we didn't suddenly in the next few centuries hit one of them there global cooling trends.... (your ilk, chicken littles, would sing a different tune then).
But... I admit... man is contributing... How much can we affect the outcome tho? What can we do? I said... taking a cup of water from the ocean reduces it's level... shooting the next british tourist reduces global warming.. both of these things would "affect" ... the former the level of water in the ocean and the later the man made effects of global warming.
I agree that nuke power is good but... not to reduce co2 or man made global warming but to get cheap electricity and increase the standard of living of all people.
Soooo.... if every peson on the earth quit driving cars or flying around in jets.....How much would it slow global warming? What would the result be? what would the tempreture be in 10 years? 100 years? 300 years?
What do we as people need to do to stop global warming... what would you do if you were all powerful... what would your rules be and how much would they "help".
You would of course guarentee a stable sun shinning exactly the same for cenmturies and no global cooling trend ever happening again...
All these hardships you would propose would be for a provable outcome with proveable results correct? they would be based on no natural phenom's ever getting in the way of your model and...
They would of course be contignent on man not making any progress in transportation more than a 2006 honda civic or a coal fired powerplant in the next 100 years as your model assumes.
lastly.... and this one has bugged me since the 70's predicted ice age....
What will you chicken littles suggest we do if/when we enter a global cooling cycle?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Upshot is this. I really do not see anyone on the planet as being intelligent enough, having access to all the variables involved, having the time, nor having the tools to be able to figure it out with any level of precision.
Did it ever occur to you that the Cray Supercomputer I spoke of being used by a team of scientists, capable of 10 mips (that's Million of Instructions Per Second, for those of you without an IBM background) might just have been commissioned because there is so much data to analyse, and because there are so many different types of data and because there are so many variables, and that they might actually be doing objective analysis and want to arrive at rational conclusions using the available data? Or do you seriously go along with Holden's fatuous suggestion that the computers have been programmed "to yield the desired result"?
And... just because the research is a work in progress does not, IMHO, give Humankind an excuse not to look for energy alternatives which emit less CO2 than the burning of fossil fuels. Some places are warmer, others are cooler. How about the polar ice caps melting due to higher levels of exposure to ultra-violet radiation from the Sun, due to the ozone depletion in those areas of the globe?
When assessing the earth's warming or cooling trend, I think there's more to it than flipping through temperature charts for one or two particular places. I agree with what you said about the ozone problem. Again, this should not be used as an excuse to do nothing about developing other sources of non-carbon energy.
Lazs - I meant it - I'm not typing it all out again. Have a nice weekend.
-
"What will you chicken littles suggest we do if/when we enter a global cooling cycle?"
What do you suggest ostrich big?
-
So this Aggie professor calls CNN and tells 'em the science dept at Texas A&M is sending a manned mission to the sun to take core samples to determine the sun's stability and it's affect on global warming. When the reporter at CNN stops laughing he tells the Aggie that the rocket will burn up long before it can land on the sun. The prof smugly replies, "we thought of that, we're landing at night".
-
What do I suggest? I suggest that we wait and see. I suggest that we let the free market adjust.
Now, again... what do you suggest that we do about the inevitable global cooling just around the corner?
You are a lot like Co2... you are a trailer of climatic change not a cause.
lazs
-
Did ya notice the track sweeping in the above article by the scientist?
I mean if you read it, it sort of says.....Well........we did say that , but we said it kinda might possibly be, but on the other hand it could be or could not be or it could be this other thing...............or something else or nothing at all.
Then again, I guess if someone had funded me (read that--big bucks) to gather and publish data and theoretical info to the public.......and then I found out that someone else had a better theory , back upped with facts from a few hundred years ago showing it to be a cycle..............I would get a little touch of politician speak to cover my butt too. Noone likes to shred their food ticket.
-
Jackal, didn't you read the article? Just the headline?
Here is a little line from it, and there are many many more...
"Dr Dick said the research did not suggest that global warming was not a reality.
"You couldn’t say, ‘The sea ice is coming back so therefore there’s no global warming’. It’s never going to be that simple," he said. "But the question now is the extent of global warming, how fast it will happen and whether there are any surprises on the way.
"We know there is warming and that it’s caused by humans, but it will be a great relief to many people if the ice comes back as opposed to going away.""
-
Originally posted by lazs2
What do I suggest? I suggest that we wait and see. I suggest that we let the free market adjust.
The problem of glacial meltdown is not going to be solved by "market forces".
-
Spot on Beetle.
The market forces rule their ways in cycles that are nowhere near to the natural cycles of nature.
Hence the warming....
-
Originally posted by Angus
Jackal, didn't you read the article? Just the headline?
Here is a little line from it, and there are many many more...
"Dr Dick said the research did not suggest that global warming was not a reality.
Yea I read it Angus. I thought you might find it interesting.
Did you read my comment on it. That statement is an example of the track sweeping I was talking about.. ........ or another term we use here is C.Y.O.A.
Let`s look at a few more.....
"The finding opens the possibility that the recent worrying changes in Arctic sea ice are simply the result of standard cyclical movements, and not a harbinger of major climate change."
"The possbility that" .......That`s a solid statement. OK...if it is cyclic movements (which you notice that noone is sayin yea or nay..C.Y.O.A. :))....and its not a "harbinger of major climate change", then what happened to all the so called , no doubt about it, "Global warming is causing the ice caps to melt" statements made by the scientist. (And I might add, I believe global warming has been quoted as most definitely the cause of the melting by yourself and others here on this board.....along with part of the scientific community)Like I said sorta kinda maybe, but maybe not and might be something else. In other words "we don`t really have a clue what the hell is going on" but I`m gonna start C.M.O.A. :). Just give them another grant and they can do an indepth study to come up with some more maybe/maybe not, kinda sorta, sometimes/sometimes not ,scientific research reports.
Here`s another.......
"As a result, Dr Chad Dick, a Scottish scientist working at the Norwegian Polar Institute in Tromso, believes the next five to ten years will be a critical period in our understanding of sea ice and the impact, if any, of long-term global warming."
So now he is saying that it will be another five to ten years before they understand sea ice. Seems like only yesterday that the so called scientific communityhad quite a few that were releasing reports/studies/findings/data to the effect that they understood sea ice totaly..............and that global warming was melting it. Translation: "We don`t know jack about sea ice like we said before, but I`m giving us another five to ten years for this to blow over and hope everyone will forget what we stated before." Mo money. C.Y.O.A. :)
Then there is the "of sea ice and the impact, if any, of long-term global warming." If any??? What happened to it`s the global warming melting the caps? Basicaly what that says is we will just have to wait and see because we don`t have a clue. C.Y.O.A. :)
Then there is this one.......................... .
"However, Dr Dick warned that if the ice carried on melting, it would mean that man-made global warming had disrupted the natural process - with potentially disastrous results."
Notice the "if". Can`t get much more solid than that from a so called scientist.:)
OK...he goes on to say IF this happens........... Translation:then then it`s most definitely global warming again. .........................unle ss we decide it`s something else and we change our mind again. All according to how much money we get to release some more kinda, sorta, maybe/maybe not..IF scientific finding reports." C.Y.O.A.
I can put in an IF here. IF it had been any of my money that paid this bozo, someone`s butt would most definitely be in for a serious three legged race to the hospital. :D
Okie doke.then this..................
"The old records that we recovered from ships’ logs and other sources may show that similar cycles are present in sea ice."
Notice the "may show". So ...he`s got the records but hasn`t read them yet....or he`s read them and don`t understand them?
Now let me get this straight. Satellite data, research centers, computer analysis and scenarios...... all this ,and a dang, so called scientist is just now getting around to looking into the possibility that there just might be documents containing the history of the ice caps? Man.......that some solid thinking and research. He must have skipped the history portion of his scientific education. :)
Then this little gem...............
""I’ve this gut feeling that within ten years from now we’ll know for certain whether we’re losing sea ice long term or whether it’s coming back."
Jeez....well that settles it then. He has a gut feeling. I know I`m convinced. How can you argue with a solid scientific statement such as "I’ve this gut feeling".
LMAO..Then the "within ten years...we`ll know for certain". C.Y.O.A.
Transaltion: "We don`t have a clue one way or the other. We`ll have to wait and see."
I beleive that`s what some of us have been saying all along...............and I didn`t receive any scientific grant. :)
And then this............
"Dr Dick said the research did not suggest that global warming was not a reality."
Of course he didn`t. After all it may or may not so he is C.H.O.A.
So...if the , "no doubt about it, global warming is a reality and the melting of the ice caps is proof" has hit a little glitch to the tune of ...."Ummmm we just found out after checking historical documents that we could just be full of crap". And global warming was the steadfast proof offered up by these edumuncated gentlemen for the proof of such, ........well I think somebody got ripped off by Mr. Gut Feeling in a big way.
And another rock solid statement that can`t be questioned................... .....
"You couldn’t say, ‘The sea ice is coming back so therefore there’s no global warming’. It’s never going to be that simple," he said. "But the question now is the extent of global warming, how fast it will happen and whether there are any surprises on the way."
LOL He also couldn`t say that the rock solid proof of global warming (melting ice) held any merit to begin with. Ooooops!
Yea the question now sure is "to what extent". :) Since it seems that global warming could just possibly and more than likely not be what all their scientific research supposedly revealed and was released as the gospel....I say "to what extent" can cats like these get by with ripping money off for bogus research grants to produce maybe/maybe, we haven`t got a clue, we just wanted a paycheck results.
Then the "how fast will it happen" line. I beleive that`s what they are supposed to be finding out and are being paid for, but since their orignal proof seems to be in question I beleive that`s about as scientific as he can get.
Then the "and whether there are any surprises on the way." Ummmmm...I wonder if he might be referring to the unkowns that can`t be factored in that myself and others have spoke about. Look at me Wilma, I`m a dadburn scientist! It`s also another case of "we will have to wait and see because we don`t have a clue" scientificaly based statement.
And I certainly wouldn`t leave out the Green Party................
Robin Harper, a Scottish Green Party MSP, said that while he hoped Arctic sea ice would return, it could actually be a false sign of hope that global warming was not as serious as previously thought.
"All it would prove is that global warming doesn’t affect that particular cycle," he said.
"There would be no reason for us to be complacent if it comes back."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now...."it could actually be a false sign of hope that global warming was not as serious as previously thought." Yea , it could be a false sign of hope......but it seems like "it just possibly might be" ( I`m catching on to this scientist talk quick)......a sign that they didn`t know anything that they were stating in the begining.
And yea, it might prove that global warming doesn`t affect that particular cycle. The particular cycle that they didn`t have enough intelligence to include in the orignal findings that was held up as proof of global warming to begin with.
It just might also show that the whole kit and caboodle was horse droppings to begin with.
And if it comes back, "There would be no reason for us to be complacent".
Yep, we need to continue fixing something that didn`t exist in the first place.
Yea...........I`d say there was just a touch of track sweeping going on.
-
I shudder at the thought of you reading other debateable data Jackal :D
""The old records that we recovered from ships’ logs and other sources may show that similar cycles are present in sea ice."
Notice the "may show". So ...he`s got the records but hasn`t read them yet....or he`s read them and don`t understand them? "
Can you not see how weak this statement is? You're pitting modern sattellite data up against what old ships logbooks MAY SHOW.
FYI, I have very little doubts that the Icecap was smaller in the year 1000 than 1979. That much? don't even think so.
There may be evidence somewhere that may show that the icecap may have reached the current minimum sometimes perhaps :cool:
-
The Scotsman article is a good example of why I don't believe in human caused global warming.
Polar history shows melting ice-cap may be a natural cycle
The Scotsman | March 9, 2005
By IAN JOHNSTON
THE melting of sea ice at the North Pole may be the result of a centuries-old natural cycle and not an indicator of man-made global warming, Scottish scientists have found.
That makes sense but later he adds this comment to spare himself the criticism of the true believers.
Dr Dick said the research did not suggest that global warming was not a reality.
and this
"We know there is warming and that it's caused by humans, but it will be a great relief to many people if the ice comes back as opposed to going away."
and this
"All it would prove is that global warming doesn't affect that particular cycle," he said.
Why do they alway mispell effect.
So what he is saying is that the melting ice may be a natural cycle but we're making it worse, maybe.
Then's there the Gulf Stream paradox:
Gulf Stream could be switched off
The Gulf Stream has a major effect on Britain's climate, allowing palm trees to grow on the west coast of Scotland. Without it, Scotland's climate would be more like Canada.
I thought it was already a bit like Canada :rofl But seriously if there is global warming surely Canada will be a warm as Miami thus cancelling out the effect. Am I missing something.
But we're given a ray of hope and another paradox. More warmth means more ice???????
In a warmer world, more water from the sea will evaporate. Greater evaporation actually helps increase the amount of sea ice as fresh water running off the land freezes more easily than salt water in the sea.
That one article sums up all my misgivings about so called global warming. Evidence now suggests that this current warming cycle may be normal. This isn't the first time scientific evidence like this has been published.
But this warming cycle is now considered proof that we humans caused it.
I think as time goes on we will see more of this absurdity. I guarantee that five years from now if the melting process starts to reverse. There will be two schools off thought. One is that 'Hooray we saved the Earth by reducing Co2 emissions' or the 'Don't get complacent, global warming is still a reality. We can expect these slight changes over time.'
Hopefully by then some common sense will return. I won't bet on it though.
On another point, the sun has shone here for the last week and a half after one of the wettest May's on record. So of course, they are talking about a water shortage and global warming is to blame.
:confused:
-
Originally posted by Angus
I shudder at the thought of you reading other debateable data Jackal :D
Well.....I`m gonna have to agree with you on that Angus. I shudder at the thought of having to read such runaround article as this ,with statements that are so lame as to be laughable, actualy put in print quoting what is supposed to be a scientist. It`s nealy embarrassing.
Angus just a couple of notes here. The below quote came from the article.
""The old records that we recovered from ships’ logs and other sources may show that similar cycles are present in sea ice."
The quote below is mine.
Notice the "may show". So ...he`s got the records but hasn`t read them yet....or he`s read them and don`t understand them? "
Can you not see how weak this statement is?
Yes Angus I certainly can. I beleive I went to all the trouble to explain how weak I thought it was above. Don`t mix my quotes up with Dr. Gut Feeling. :)
That was the point........MAY SHOW is what ole Gut Feeling said. Maybe/maybe not ..coud be.or could not be. C.Y.O.A. as mentioned above.
You're pitting modern sattellite data up against what old ships logbooks MAY SHOW.
HUH? I`m not pitting anything against anything. Not sure where you get that.
You will have to explain to me how modern sattelite data would come into play concerning the ice cap cycles. I`m missing something here.
Now.....please remember that Gut Feeling made the MAY SHOW statement , not me.
What I was saying, was that I believe that if he had read the documents/logs, that they either would show or wouldn`t show it being cyclic. I would think that there would be entries in these logs containing latitude/longitude concerning the location and limits of the ice over a period of years. The MAY SHOW is just another example of track sweeping and C.Y.O.A.
There may be evidence somewhere that may show that the icecap may have reached the current minimum sometimes perhaps
Yes, I agree, but I also think it might be surprising. I just don`t know and I don`t have a gut feeling about it..could be.....or maybe not......but a possibility.............IF. ( Last week I couldn`t spell scientist. Now I R 1)
OK Angus..............I got to ask. Do you just totaly dismiss the theory by Bozo and crew that the melting might be a cyclic pattern?
I also got to say..you Aight Angus. You can hang. :)
-
Hang..or be hung...:D
(like a grand national winner, :D)
Well...
"I guarantee that five years from now if the melting process starts to reverse. There will be two schools off thought. One is that 'Hooray we saved the Earth by reducing Co2 emissions' or the 'Don't get complacent, global warming is still a reality. We can expect these slight changes over time.'"
Then we wait 5 years. Not a long time.
There might be the third school though. Like, "Dang, it's still melting. and WTF do we do now?"
Errr, this. We might be having a misunderstanding?
"You're pitting modern sattellite data up against what old ships logbooks MAY SHOW.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUH? I`m not pitting anything against anything. Not sure where you get that.
You will have to explain to me how modern sattelite data would come into play concerning the ice cap cycles. I`m missing something here."
This is the issue of the article. The N-Pole might be running cyclic (they talk about a 50 year cycle, wonder how that one went past WW2). But there is no data to suggest this apart from vaguely, while we have the last few decades or so quite well covered with hard and proof data, logged, photographed and then from sattelites.
So, no "gut" feeling about it. It's rather absolute from 1979 to today, and we do not yet have any data at all suggesting the status we have now, unless going VERY far back.
Then eventually, regarding the "discarding" of things. Well, I do not in the first place discard that the N-Pole cap is shrinking fast. I do not discard the theory that we humans may have something to do with it, and I definately do NOT discard the FACT that there are big cycles and at times rapid and wild changes in the earth atmosphere without human interference.
But....I've been promoting that the globe IS warming. This issue needs another thread ;)
-
Originally posted by Angus
This is the issue of the article. The N-Pole might be running cyclic (they talk about a 50 year cycle, wonder how that one went past WW2).
Actualy it suggests 60 to 80 year periods. That would leave satellites out of the picture. It also states that it corresponds roughly with known cyclical changes in atmospheric temperature.
But there is no data to suggest this apart from vaguely, while we have the last few decades or so quite well covered with hard and proof data, logged, photographed and then from sattelites.
Concerning the cylic period suggested satellite data would not be available . No satellites during the period.
I would like to know more of what the ship logs contain over the three hundred year period.
So, no "gut" feeling about it. It's rather absolute from 1979 to today, and we do not yet have any data at all suggesting the status we have now, unless going VERY far back.
I`m assuming by "absolute" concerning data that you are speaking of the ice melting during that period.
Seems like there was some dispute during a couple of periods wheter the ice was actualy melting/receding and some seemed to find that the reports stating ice melting were not true. Global warming seemed to be in question also. :)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eample #1
Written By: James M. Taylor
Published In: Environment News
Publication Date: October 1, 2001
Publisher: The Heartland Institute
A series of recent studies shows that the polar ice caps, which should be shrinking if dire global warming theories are correct, are maintaining their mass and in fact growing slightly. The studies suggest satellite temperature readings, which indicate no global warming of the lower atmosphere, are more reliable than surface temperature readings, taken by humans under varying conditions, that had indicated a slow, gradual warming.
A study published in the December 3, 1999 issue of Science magazine, authored by Ola Johannessen, Elena Shalena, and Martin Miles, reported Arctic sea ice had declined by 14 percent from 1978 through 1998. In a related story, columnist Richard Kerr pondered "Will the Arctic Ocean lose all its ice?" The mainstream press ran with the story, giving dire warnings that global warming was upon us.
However, CO2 Science Magazine later noted that in the Johannessen study, "essentially all of the drop . . . occurs rather abruptly over a single period of not more than three years (87/88-90/91) and possibly only one year (89/90-90/91). Furthermore, it could be argued from their data that from 1990/91 onward, sea ice area in the Arctic may have actually increased."
More recent studies of the polar ice caps verify CO2 Science Magazine's skepticism, and show the polar ice caps are holding their own and actually growing slightly.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#2
Arctic ice thickening, expanding
A study published in Geophysical Research Letters (Winsor, P., "Arctic sea ice thickness remained constant during the 1990s," Volume 28: 1039-1041 (2001)) found the same to be true in the Arctic. The study concluded, "mean ice thickness has remained on a near-constant level around the North Pole from 1986-1997." Moreover, the study noted data from six different submarine cruises under the Arctic sea ice showed little variability and a "slight increasing trend" in the 1990s.
Just off the Arctic polar ice cap, ice coverage in Greenland was also shown to be steady and likely increasing. A study in Journal of Geophysical Research (Comiso, J.C., Wadhams, P., Pedersen, L.T. and Gersten, R.A., Volume 106: 9093-9116 (2001)) concluded that, annual variances notwithstanding, the Odden ice tongue in Greenland exhibited no statistically significant change from 1979 to 1998. Moreover, proxy reconstruction of the ice tongue utilizing air temperature data indicated the ice covers a greater area today than it did several decades ago.
Viewed as a whole, the new ice cap studies indicate no global warming has occurred in recent decades, at least not in high latitudes. These findings also offer an important insight into one of the more significant controversies surrounding global warming theory.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, once again , all down the line, it seems some said yea, some said nay in the scientific community.
Then eventually, regarding the "discarding" of things. Well, I do not in the first place discard that the N-Pole cap is shrinking fast. I do not discard the theory that we humans may have something to do with it, and I definately do NOT discard the FACT that there are big cycles and at times rapid and wild changes in the earth atmosphere without human interference.
Hehe. Angus you shooting for a scientific position also or politician? :)
Understood. I beleive you have made it perfectly clear about the ice melting.
That is the basis of my question that you answered with ....well you didn`t answer. :) In your posts it seems that you primarily base your belief of global warming on the ice melting as solid proof.
I`ll ask the question a little more direct and simple.
Do you, or do you not believe that the cyclic periods theory in the article is a possibility?
-
So, you're pitting theories from at least 6 years ago against what we see today? I am afraid that the melting on the Greenland Glacier is not up to debate any more.
Same goes with the polar cap. While we now KNOW how much it has shrunk (the shrinking itself being debated until hard data is enough), we don't know how much it shrank before. Just that it's been there for a very long time. We do not know if it was ever that small after it was "established". So what do we know? It's smaller than we have evidence about in human times, and still shrinking.
60 to 60 years...that's BTW WW2 or at best WW1. Times past the sailship age. 60 years would be oo short I'm afraid....where did Bismarck try to sneak past the RN and how much ice is there today?????
-
Originally posted by Angus
So, you're pitting theories from at least 6 years ago against what we see today?
LOL You are bound and determined to sign me up for the "Pitting" team one way or the other, aren`t you?
Once again Angus I am not pitting anything against anything. The article, as was stated, were examples of non-agreement/different theories. It also points out a great deal of flip flopping in a very short time.I also included the statement.."So, once again , all down the line, it seems some said yea, some said nay in the scientific community." I have not got my pom poms bought to cheer for either side. Like I said the best I can tell is, according to the scientific world is ........could be/could not be....maybe......kinda sorta.....IF......possibly... ....and as you pointed out...MAY SHOW....and....we will have to wait and see.
I am afraid that the melting on the Greenland Glacier is not up to debate any more. I am afraid that the melting on the Greenland Glacier is not up to debate any more.
Same goes with the polar cap. While we now KNOW how much it has shrunk (the shrinking itself being debated until hard data is enough), we don't know how much it shrank before. Just that it's been there for a very long time. We do not know if it was ever that small after it was "established". So what do we know? It's smaller than we have evidence about in human times, and still shrinking.
Angus, can you do me a favor? Can we get off of what you seem to beleive is the debate here........Melting ice or no ice melting. OK...the ice is melting. I know this because Angus, by gawd ,told me so. :)
The question I am asking about is not whether or not the ice is melting. The cause is what I am talking about. You have stated global warming as the cause you belive that is responsible for the melting. In the article we are talking about, the theory that it could possibly be, and I quote from the article..."After researching the log-books of Arctic explorers spanning the past 300 years, scientists believe that the outer edge of sea ice may expand and contract over regular periods of 60 to 80 years. This change corresponds roughly with known cyclical changes in atmospheric temperature."
The cause of the melting ice is evidently up for grabs in some scientific circles.
I will ask my question for a third time. Sorry for the confusion.
Here goes........Do you or do you not beleive that the proposed theory in the article is a possibilty?
Once again, not if the ice is melting or not, but do you or do you not believe the theory proposed in the article is a possiblity?
DISCLAIMER: I take an oath, that in this instance, I am not guilty of "pitting". :)
60 to 60 years...that's BTW WW2 or at best WW1.
Actualy 60 to 80 years. :)
Times past the sailship age.
According to the article , the ships logs and artic explorers are spanning the last 300 years. That would include a few of the cyclic periods.
It is also stated in the article, and I quote......."This change corresponds roughly with known cyclical changes in atmospheric temperature."
Note:Pitting denied. :)
60 years would be oo short I'm afraid....where did Bismarck try to sneak past the RN and how much ice is there today?????
Here we go with the ice melting again. :) OK....but in a 60 to 80 year cycle, I don`t beleive it was mentioned anywhere that there was an instant freeze/defrost switch. It would be over a 60 to 80 year period, but that falls back to the melting or not melting debate you seem to be trying to engage me in.
Just so you won`t forget, my question is, once again....Do you or do you not beleive that the proposed theory in the article is a possibilty?
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
....we will have to wait and see.
Ah yes, another thread in the Lazsite "wait and see" school of thought. Wait and see what? Wait and see to watch cities like London and New York under a few feet of water? Wait and see Miami become an offshore island, 50 miles off the coast of Florida? You and I will be dead by then, but are you saying we should simply do nothing, because it won't be our problem?
Some notes from the US Energy Information Administration which sources official energy statistics from the US Government. Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html Many chemical compounds found in the Earth’s atmosphere act as “greenhouse gases.” These gases allow sunlight to enter the atmosphere freely. When sunlight strikes the Earth’s surface, some of it is reflected back towards space as infrared radiation (heat). Greenhouse gases absorb this infrared radiation and trap the heat in the atmosphere. Over time, the amount of energy sent from the sun to the Earth’s surface should be about the same as the amount of energy radiated back into space, leaving the temperature of the Earth’s surface roughly constant.
Many gases exhibit these “greenhouse” properties. Some of them occur in nature (water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide), while others are exclusively human-made (like gases used for aerosols).
Why Are Atmospheric Levels Increasing?
Levels of several important greenhouse gases have increased by about 25 percent since large-scale industrialization began around 150 years ago (Figure 1). During the past 20 years, about three-quarters of human-made carbon dioxide emissions were from burning fossil fuels.
From the above, we can deduce the following facts. - CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
- Greenhouse gas traps sunlight, and prevents the sun's infra red radiation being reflected back into space.
- Global warming is the result of the above ^
- Levels of several important greenhouse gases have increased by about 25 percent since large-scale industrialization began around 150 years ago.
- During the past 20 years, about three-quarters of human-made carbon dioxide emissions were from burning fossil fuels.
- The meltdown of ice at the north pole and glaciers around Greenland is indeed happening - see Angus's earlier posts.
- According to US Department of Energy statistics, in 2003 the total world CO2 output exceeded 25 billion tonnes. This will rise with the industrialisation of India and China. .XLS document from Energy Information Administration (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1co2.xls)
So basically, we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas which causes global warming, and we know for a fact that the glacial meltdown is indeed happening. Now, are we just going to sit around, shooting the breeze, deciding how we should apportion the blame between Man and Mother Nature? Or are we going to do something about it? I've already made up my mind which camp I'm in, and it isn't the "wait and see" camp.
-
So does Algore's A Convienent Lie have cool disaster footage like the day after tomarrow? I might go see it if so
-
Well, Jackal, make up your mind then. Is the Ice melting or not. Oh typical answer, uhhhh, it's prolly a natural cycle.
"You have stated global warming as the cause you belive that is responsible for the melting"
You will need something to warm in order to melt ice. Yes, I belive that it's melting because the globe is warming.
And why is the globe warming. Well, I think we have something to do with it but the question how much actually remains debateable IMHO.
Oh, and an 80 year cycle puts us to 1926. 60 to 80 from 1926 to 1946.
While the melting and re-freezing doesn't happen in an instant, there should be ample data about this. And is it?
You can also use another method to try to judge the ice cover. Animal life, like Polar Bears. They don't go over vast areas of open ocean. This is the method David Attenborough uses as a "Thermometer".
Guess what. Polar Bears were a nuicance in my country until the 20th century, then poof, they were gone. Only had a handful here in the last hundred years. And no cycles.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Well, Jackal, make up your mind then. Is the Ice melting or not.
Maybe you missed this Angus. I`ll requote it.
"OK...the ice is melting. I know this because Angus, by gawd ,told me so."
That`s not the debate. The cause is.
Oh typical answer, uhhhh, it's prolly a natural cycle.
An answer that has been put forth, yes. Not my answer, but a possibility that has been put forth as a possible theory.
You will need something to warm in order to melt ice. Yes, I belive that it's melting because the globe is warming.
OK, that is your belief. Got it. :) I`m going to temporarily make the assumption that you rule out any other possibility. Correct me if I`m wrong. At this point I can`t assume much else since you refuse to answer the direct question asked numerous times. :)
Oh, and an 80 year cycle puts us to 1926.
Reversing from this point in time, yes. That is assuming that this is and ending/starting point.
60 to 80 from 1926 to 1946.
That is a 40 year period. It actualy has noting to do with anything concerning this because proposed starting/ending pooints have not been put forth. You are assuming current time for ending/starting points.
While the melting and re-freezing doesn't happen in an instant, there should be ample data about this. And is it?
Evidently there is some.....or at least it has been suggested. Once again, I`ll quote from the article..."This change corresponds roughly with known cyclical changes in atmospheric temperature." Remeber...that`s old Doc Gut Feelings statement, not mine. I`m still waiting until he learns to read. :)
You can also use another method to try to judge the ice cover. Animal life, like Polar Bears. They don't go over vast areas of open ocean. This is the method David Attenborough uses as a "Thermometer". Guess what. Polar Bears were a nuicance in my country until the 20th century, then poof, they were gone. Only had a handful here in the last hundred years. And no cycles. [/B]
[/QUOTE]
Much of a population increase there in the last couple of hundred years?
In times, not so distant in the past, my state was on the verge of completely loosing our deer population. It wasn`t due to global warming....or even climate cycles. Just saying.
And no cycles.
Well......at least you are certain of that. The scientific community doesn`t seem to be able to agree/disagree with it. Of course, that`s no surprise.
I realize this is probably futile, but I`ll put my question up again just for kicks. I can certainly understand your reluctance to give a direct answer to it but hey..........
Requote from a requote......................:)
"Do you, or do you not believe that the cyclic periods theory in the article is a possibility?"
Possibility? Yes/No?
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Or are we going to do something about it? I've already made up my mind which camp I'm in.
And camping is about all you will do Beet. Make sure you don`t go to the campground on anything other than a bicycle. If you truly beleive in what you say you beleive as facts, you might consider buying a lot of heavy, insulated clothing. If you accept the theory , then it seems you are in for some bitter cold weather.
-
LOL... do you think angus and beet have "I want to believe" posters in their bedrooms... The religion of environmentalism....
beet... You have never answered my question about how much and how soon. You seem to admit that C02 is a tiny percent of global warming... that man only contributes about 2-4% of even that (co2). You don't say how long that 2-4% of the co2 that in itself, is only a minor cause of global warming will affect real global warming. You talk of london and new york being underwater (not a bad thought) but don't say when or... how much us all dying off would slow that days coming.
So... if man disapeared off the planet... and the planet stayed on it's natural course.... what would the temp be in 100 years?
We all seem to agree that rising co2 levels might.... might... raise the temp 1 degree in 100 years, all else staying stable (LOL) including how much energy the sun sends down...
Soo... what would happen if we just disapeared?
2bighorn summed it up... there is climactic change and it is natural... we undoubtably are contributing in SOME way but it is so minor as to be unprovable and so.... most of us are not willing to change one thing that will inconvienience us (including tourism) in the off chance that we slow the doomsday by a few minutes of eternity.
-
Here is a bad answer:
"Much of a population increase there in the last couple of hundred years?
In times, not so distant in the past, my state was on the verge of completely loosing our deer population. It wasn`t due to global warming....or even climate cycles. Just saying."
Do deer travel with ice?
And a second question, which Attenborough (sure he must have bedroom posters). Why are animal species from warmer areas spreading into what used to be cooler areas? Same goes with vegetation.
You see, there is not much of living with posters on the wall (I am quite insulted, you take me for something PETAish or Greenpeaceish, which I am not). Its living on the delicate border og arctic and temperate climates, and easily being able to observe what is going on.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Here is a bad answer:
"Much of a population increase there in the last couple of hundred years?
In times, not so distant in the past, my state was on the verge of completely loosing our deer population. It wasn`t due to global warming....or even climate cycles. Just saying."
Do deer travel with ice?
Bad answer? I asked you a question.
I asked you a simple question that shouldn`t have been hard for you to answer since you live there. Nevermind , hell I`ll look it up.
Do deer travel with ice? Good point. The exact point I was asking about. The deer nearly became totaly wiped out in this state. Ice/no ice had nothing to do with it. Neither did global warming or cyclic climate changes. There are other reasons animal population decreases or becomes totaly extinct. Some are natural causes with changes in the earth makeup. Some are caused by population/industrilazation increases. Seen many dinosaurs around lately? Things on earth change. Not always man made, but sometimes.
You see, there is not much of living with posters on the wall
There is not much sense trying to live with posters who will not consider factors other than they wish to beleive, even though there are other possiblities put forth.
(I am quite insulted, you take me for something PETAish or Greenpeaceish, which I am not).
Don`t know if that is directed at me. If it is..I take insult to your insult because it certainly didn`t come from me. I`m trying to get a simple yes/no answer to a simple question. If you are insulted by me, it is self inflicted. Once again , I understand your reluctance to answer. I think we all do. :)
Its living on the delicate border og arctic and temperate climates, and easily being able to observe what is going on.
..............and looking at an effect and refusing to consider any other possiblity for the cause other than the one you have based your whole position on. A position, which by the way, is certainly not agreed on in the scientific community.
Simple question......
"Do you, or do you not believe that the cyclic periods theory in the article is a possibility?"
Possibility? Yes/No?
-
On the upside if the ice in greenland keeps melting, in a few more years we will be able to get a few more P-38s from there. :D
-
News update.
Yesterday Britain had the warmest day in 80 years.
Pollen are also increasing between years as the temperature is steadily rising. Well, that's what the Brits say.
And the answer to the question about the Polar Bears is: The drift ice is too far away from here now, so the open sea keeps them away from here.
Got nothing to do with deer, but everything to do with a rising temperature.
Oh, and it was Lazs who came up with that poster joke.
Then Here Jackal...read a tad better:
"Its living on the delicate border og arctic and temperate climates, and easily being able to observe what is going on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
..............and looking at an effect and refusing to consider any other possiblity for the cause other than the one you have based your whole position on. A position, which by the way, is certainly not agreed on in the scientific community."
This comment is from me:
"And why is the globe warming. Well, I think we have something to do with it but the question how much actually remains debateable IMHO."
The scientists af many nations now MOSTLY agree that we have a lot to do with it hence all the measures being taken to counter.
Then the answer to your question. Yes. Cyclic meaning cyclic warming. Possible, but IMHO unlikely.
On we go. Since glaciers are shrinking right in front of my eyes and revealing areas that no human has seen for almost 1000 years they were indeed smaller 1000 years ago! There was a warm period from ca 8th century (?) untill 1200 or so. Definately not man made. Then they grew and stayed there untill recently. Now they retreat fast. Indeed the warming is so fast that one of the most popular skiing hills from as late as the 80's are now practically barren. And in other places very few skiing days.
And GtoRA2 : There is a B17 coming from the nearest glacier where I live. The engine block is outside the nearest farm to it. But after going down and under the ice it's pretty well chewed up :(
-
One of the biggest killers of deer populations is harsh sustained winters. Usually, to counter this, a state will issue more hunting tags and even begin poisoning large heards of deer to thin the population (they all run out of food at the same time... thinning gives the rest more time). This is often protested as cruel, though the alternative to it would definately be something that was blamed on human population too.
It's kinda odd how that comes up as a microcosm for this entire "debate".
-
Originally posted by Angus
News update.
Yesterday Britain had the warmest day in 80 years.
Pollen are also increasing between years as the temperature is steadily rising. Well, that's what the Brits say.
Well...if you believe in the global warming theory, that will reverse shortly. According to the theory put forth, in a short time Britian will go into a mini-iceage. That`s what the global warming theorists side says anyway. Of course you allready knew that.
Then Here Jackal...read a tad better:"Its living on the delicate border og arctic and temperate climates, and easily being able to observe what is going on.
Read it just fine the first time Angus , but thanks. Yea, you are observing what is going on, but you don`t know the cause....just like the scientific community.
The scientists af many nations now MOSTLY agree that we have a lot to do with it hence all the measures being taken to counter.
LOL Haven`t seen the scientists from either side of the fence agrre on anything other than......could be/could not be.....maybe/maybe not......possibly, but most importantly IF. If a rabbit had wings, his butt wouldn`t hit the ground so often. :)
So far , all any of them is done is based their speculations on incomplete data and projected scenarios of IF. That`s all they can possibly do because there is no possible way for them to include events that they neither know about, understand or is no way to predict. Can`t be done. Predicted scenarios, in a sterile situation based on if this continues, if this does or does not happen, it this that or the other remains the same as it is now......does not include mother natures natural influence when things become off balance one way or the other. The earth has been changing since recorded history began.
Then the answer to your question. Yes. Cyclic meaning cyclic warming. Possible, but IMHO unlikely.
Thank you. Don`t know exactly why you consider it unlikely, but hey it is just as feasible as the global warming theory. Both are based on maybes/maybe nots.
At least you are considering it. That means that you also have to be considering that the global warming theory could possibly just be a load of horse manure. :)
And the answer to the question about the Polar Bears is: The drift ice is too far away from here now, so the open sea keeps them away from here.Got nothing to do with deer, but everything to do with a rising temperature.
An shows nor proves anything as to the true cause. I beleive you understood the comparison just fine. :)
Look at it this way....you said that they were considered a pest and nuisance there at one time. Problem solved, huh?
On we go. Since glaciers are shrinking right in front of my eyes and revealing areas that no human has seen for almost 1000 years they were indeed smaller 1000 years ago! There was a warm period from ca 8th century (?) untill 1200 or so. Definately not man made. Then they grew and stayed there untill recently. Now they retreat fast. Indeed the warming is so fast that one of the most popular skiing hills from as late as the 80's are now practically barren. And in other places very few skiing days.
Which, once again, shows an effect, but proves nothing of the cause. Ice is melting....we got that Angus. :)
The earth has always been in a constant state of change. I suspect it always will be. Mother nature seems to have a pretty good balancing act going on, always has. You have stated that what needs to be done counter global warming is plant more vegetation. Ok, look at the areas that are being opened up that have not had vegetation on them for a long , long time. Vegetation, forests, etc. will appear and grow here. No Ancient Eygyptians needed. :)
Mother nature doing a balancing act?
-
There are many dire predicitions based on the theory of continuing global warming. The ice in Greenland melts and gives rise to sea levels swamping costal cities. Have those in the doom and gloom camp considered that warmer air holds more moisture? Perhaps the ice melted in Greenland will be offset by the increased moisture held in the warmer air? Lotta variables to consider.
-
luckster... of course many things will change in the coming decades... of course we didn't avert nor can we avert global warming or cooling and of course the natural variables are many times more significant than anything man can do..
You are speaking rationaly but.... you are speaking to religious fantatics... the "believe" and they "see" and they "feel" you can't argue that... they don't care when somethingt in their theory gets debunked.... they move on to the next part... all mans fault... all prevenable by ruling with an iron fist...
and all.... must be done right frigging now before large chunks of the sky fall on us. Oh.... and all must be paid for by someone else and everything they do should be exempt.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
... of course we didn't avert nor can we avert global warming or cooling and of course the natural variables are many times more significant than anything man can do..
You've gone from asking me how much CO2 in the air is man made, to presenting this ^ as "fact". Earlier, you suggested "waiting and seeing", and that the situation of melting glaciers could be solved by "market forces". Now you're back to citing concerns about global warming as a "religion" - I never heard such twaddle in my life! :lol
Angus - I have a slight correction to what you said earlier. Yesterday was not the warmest day Britain has ever known in 80 years, but it was the warmest June 12 since 1925. However, it certainly has been excessively hot in the past week, reaching 33° here in the south yesterday.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
You've gone from asking me how much CO2 in the air is man made, to presenting this ^ as "fact". Earlier, you suggested "waiting and seeing", and that the situation of melting glaciers could be solved by "market forces". Now you're back to citing concerns about global warming as a "religion" - I never heard such twaddle in my life! :lol
Angus - I have a slight correction to what you said earlier. Yesterday was not the warmest day Britain has ever known in 80 years, but it was the warmest June 12 since 1925. However, it certainly has been excessively hot in the past week, reaching 33� here in the south yesterday.
So, it was hotter in 1925? How do you explain that? ;)
-
Freak year!
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Freak year!
Freak 50 years!
just as plausible. We are talking of timescales of millienia.
-
Originally posted by Angus
.
And GtoRA2 : There is a B17 coming from the nearest glacier where I live. The engine block is outside the nearest farm to it. But after going down and under the ice it's pretty well chewed up :(
As was the B17 that landed with the lost P-38 flight.
The P-38 they pulled out was mostly intack though pretty badly crushed in places and the tail was ripped off.
The other P-38s may be in better shape, though they were 250 plus feet down I think, so thats we prolly need more dudes like Laz with Big blocks chevies and will to use them!
-
Some 70 metres down I think.
I'll try to find more on this.
-
268 feet wow!
http://www.thelostsquadron.com/p-38-pages/p-38-lightning-recovery.htm
Anyway, lot's to look into here ;)
"So, it was hotter in 1925? How do you explain that?"
There were always spikes. It was hotter in the N-Temperate zone centuries ago, cooling in the middle ages. But finding 10 consecutive years that beat our last 10 might still prove a bit hard....
And here is a goodie:
"There are many dire predicitions based on the theory of continuing global warming. The ice in Greenland melts and gives rise to sea levels swamping costal cities. Have those in the doom and gloom camp considered that warmer air holds more moisture? Perhaps the ice melted in Greenland will be offset by the increased moisture held in the warmer air? Lotta variables to consider."
Surely variables to consider. How much 100% moisture do you think this chunk will make? And what is the effect of a vast glacier vs increased moisture? The glacier reflect sunrays, thereby heat, while water moisture ranks as greenhouse gas. Reverse effects so to say.
Then Jackal.....
"At least you are considering it. That means that you also have to be considering that the global warming theory could possibly just be a load of horse manure"
If you refer to the theory of the global warming being mostly man-made, I just consider that too.
If you refer to the globe not being warming I consider the warming as a fact.
Then this one:
"You have stated that what needs to be done counter global warming is plant more vegetation. Ok, look at the areas that are being opened up that have not had vegetation on them for a long , long time. Vegetation, forests, etc. will appear and grow here. No Ancient Eygyptians needed.
Mother nature doing a balancing act? "
I have stated that increased vegetation affects the CO2 balance. Logically, IF the warming is due to greenhouse gas emission, this is countering.
We now have vast areas on the planet that are mostly deprived of vegetation, while burning old trapped Charbon. Natures way of balancing would be the destruction of us, then autopilot :D
And the Egyptians once again. I was referring to their CURRENT projects where they are advancing with their green areas into the desert in a very impressive way. There are more Egyptians than the ancient, and many nations could perhaps try to follow their example.
-
LOL! Science be dammed.
If a glacier melts it will flood the world? Wow.
If a glacier melts due to global warming, then the ice cap will also recede. If that's done, the sea level will actually go down. Ice takes up more volume in water than water.
It's amazing how twisted and anti-science this "debate" gets and how quickly it gets there. Damn... now I'm just being redundant.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Then Jackal.....
If you refer to the theory of the global warming being mostly man-made, I just consider that too.
Well, that`s a given. We know the theory is man-made. It`s whether the theory will hold water, so to speak, that is the question.
If you refer to the globe not being warming I consider the warming as a fact.
Another thing that you seem seem to be more sure of than the scientific community. They certainly don`t agree on it.
I have stated that increased vegetation affects the CO2 balance. Logically, IF the warming is due to greenhouse gas emission, this is countering.
:) You`re picking up on the scientist speak pretty good................IF....may be/maybe not...could be/could not be.............possibly/possibly not.
Natures way of balancing would be the destruction of us, then autopilot :D
Not sure how you figure that. I beleive, once again, that you are putting man as the ultimate factor.
And the Egyptians once again. I was referring to their CURRENT projects where they are advancing with their green areas into the desert in a very impressive way.
I`d be willing to bet they are using machinery to do so. Sort of doubt they are doing all the work manualy. If so , then here we go with opposite effect again.
-
Jackal, you're in one haggling mood.
Here's something for your info.
The Egyptians are mostly playing with the Nile, and definately using machinery as well.
To make agriculture in warm areas like there, you would need some 10% of the land to create all the machine energy you'll need.
10 is a rough number, but has still a good foot.
For planting and cropping oil seed in a country like ...Denmark, you'll need roughly 5 hours with 150 hp x 15 litres of diesel => some 75, - hell, let's say 100 litres.
A very good crop seed is 3 tonnes. That leaves the biomass of the stick & leaves. Very much of the 3 tonnes is oil, the rest is protein food.
Levels out quite nicely.
A barren sand ties up no CO2 at all.
-
so beet... do you admit that doubling the co2 level will increase temp by about 1 degree and that doubling it will take 100 years if nothing else changes and we continue to produce co2 at the rate we are and.... no natural cooling trend happens?
I don't think we caused to go away, the 1990 "ice age" that was predicted.
I don't think we are significantly affecting weather now.. be it global warming or cooling.
I think anyone who calims we are does so based on a belief bordering on religious fantisism.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Mini D
LOL! Science be dammed.
If a glacier melts it will flood the world? Wow.
If a glacier melts due to global warming, then the ice cap will also recede. If that's done, the sea level will actually go down. Ice takes up more volume in water than water.
It's amazing how twisted and anti-science this "debate" gets and how quickly it gets there. Damn... now I'm just being redundant.
Depends. Glaciers like those sitting on Greenland are not floating on water but rather sitting on land. Any melting there would add to the volume of the sea. However, there are a lot of unknowns, not the least of which is how much water will be absorbed by the warmer air. I've read that none of the ice in Antartica will melt due to the current warming trends but rather it will likely grow due to the increased snow fall resulting from the warmer air holding more moisture.
-
All them new and faster growing plants due to increased Co2 are gonna need water too.
lazs
-
Antarctica is breaking of very big chunks now, - bigger than known before.
What their effect will be is hard to say, - depends where they go.
Big chunks stay very long, - and smaller, but somewhat proper chunks like the one who got hit by the Titanic can take centuries to melt. (It is claimed that one has been identified)
But the thinner ice on the arctic melts faster, breaks faster etc. That one, already being in the water does NOT raise the ocean level.
Personally, I am not worrying so much about the ice melting. It will take a long time to raise the SL properly. It's the TUNDRA melting that gives me the jitters. Ask me why ....
-
Originally posted by lazs2
All them new and faster growing plants due to increased Co2 are gonna need water too.
lazs
Sounds like the system might be self regulating doesn't it? Of course there's a little wiggle room. Afterall, without a little change from time to time things would get pretty boring.
-
if the tundra is melting then mother nature is just doing her thing... There is nothing man can do about it.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Angus
Jackal, you're in one haggling mood.
Here's something for your info.
The Egyptians are mostly playing with the Nile, and definately using machinery as well.
To make agriculture in warm areas like there, you would need some 10% of the land to create all the machine energy you'll need.
10 is a rough number, but has still a good foot.
For planting and cropping oil seed in a country like ...Denmark, you'll need roughly 5 hours with 150 hp x 15 litres of diesel => some 75, - hell, let's say 100 litres.
A very good crop seed is 3 tonnes. That leaves the biomass of the stick & leaves. Very much of the 3 tonnes is oil, the rest is protein food.
Levels out quite nicely.
A barren sand ties up no CO2 at all.
Hehe! Here we go again. That`s just fine if you want to have a starting point beginning in the middle or near the end of the process.
I believe you left out a few things in your equation Angus.
Machinery takes iron/metal to make and produce. Iron ore has to be mined/refined. ( More C02 output) This is not even considering the machinery used and C02 output produced in the exploration end of it.(Machinery) Factories have to be built and in production. (More machinery, more C02 output) Once built, the machinery has to be shipped. Whether by land or sea, it equals more machinery , more C02 output.
Your theory would pan out if the machinery magical appeared on location.......possibly. :) Don`t work like that.
Your theory and figures are also based upon perfect scenarios just like the sceanarios used by global warming theorists. A sterile/absolute environment, if you will. Hardly if ever works out that way in reality due to the unknown factors that can`t be predicted.
A sidenote I had to add:
Some years ago , the Farmer`s Co-Op in our area hired four supposedly top notch cattle feed formulation experts. Wallpaper running out their yazoo. Degrees, degrees and more degrees. Damn near career students of higher edumuncation. :)
They got their heads together and came up with what they proposed as a low cost/high protein range cube formula.
With laptops, and sheets of written formulas in hand, they presented this formula to my Dad.
To use my Dad`s words. ..he told them "It won`t work cats."
They went into a dither of showing and reshowing the formula and kept stressing the protein content. Dad told them that yea it had protein, but didn`t mean you could make a cube out of it in reality. He also told them that he could get protein from a bois d` arc tree, but that didn`t mean he could make a cube out of it.
He agreed to a test run. When the range cubes came out of the cube die they were slick and pretty and nearing perfection. The experts were picking them up and showing them to Dad with chests puffed out with their superior knowledge. :)
Dad told them "Good enough. Now let`s go one floor down to the cooling bin."
They went down and when the cubes exited the conveyor out of the cooling bin they had exloded and puffed up to the point of unrecognizable.
Reality sometimes gets in the way of things in formulas and predicted results from sterile scenarios. :)
In the majority of cases, good ole common sense will prevail. :)
-
LOL Lazs - I didn't know David Attenborough was a religious fanatic!
If you have a DVD player that can play Region-2 DVD-RAM, I'd send you DA's programme, and all your questions would be answered. You wouldn't have to keep "busting my chops" about it. Isn't that what they say in NY?
And Angus - they're right, you know - it really makes no sense to believe the results of scientific studies that have taken place over decades, costing millions of $, when the answers to everything can be found by asking some guy in the Fountain of Knowledge (also known as the AH O'Club) who has never even seen Greenland!
:rofl
-
Pretty interesting read from Hot Talk/Cold Science
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OAKLAND, California--In recent weeks, as delegations from 150 countries prepared to discuss stringent and mandatory measures to combat global warming at a December meeting of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Kyoto, environmental activists and their bureaucratic allies have tried to stifle public debate by claiming that the evidence was "compelling" and the science "settled." But according to physicist S. Fred Singer, former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Program and chairman of the U.S. investigation into climate effects of the supersonic transport (SST), the science on global warming is neither settled, nor compelling, nor even convincing.
In Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate (Oakland, California: Independent Institute 1997), Singer presents a comprehensive assessment of scientific controversies on the climate change issue. Most disturbing, he says, is that the proposals being put forth at Kyoto are based on forecasts from flawed computer models of the Earth's climate, and not on actual observations. Although the models are improving over time (and their warming forecasts growing smaller), they still cannot simulate clouds, predict the occurrence of El Ninos nor adequately account for the climate effects of volcanic eruptions. In effect, he says, modelers are holding up a black box and saying: "Trust us. It's in there." Many atmospheric scientists are not so sure.
While global average temperatures have increased about 1 degree F in the last century, almost all of this occurred before 1940 and is considered by most atmospheric scientists--including respected Swedish meteorologist Bert Bolin, former chairman of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change--to be a natural recovery from the "Little Ice Age," a period of much colder temperatures between the years 1450 and 1850. In the last 50 years the temperature increase has been negligible; in the last 20 years, according to global satellite data, temperatures have actually fallen slightly.
Singer points out that the Earth's history, both recent and geologic, shows evidence of many natural and unexplained temperature fluctuations. Even over the last 3,000 years of recorded history, some of these changes were larger and more rapid than those forecast by the models. What is more, there is no evidence that recent droughts, floods, snowstorms or other severe weather-related phenomena are at all related to global temperature. Since 1950, the severity and frequency of hurricanes has actually been decreasing.
Recent research has raised important questions about the causes of natural climate change, and pointed to more cost-effective remediation for the build-up of CO2, should that be needed. Scientists have now uncovered potentially new climate mechanisms, most intriguing being the effect of variations over the course of the 11-year solar cycle. There are indications that contrails from commercial airline traffic--increasing at 5 percent per year--could be producing a slight regional warming over Europe and North America. Preliminary studies of ice cores and ocean sediment cores indicate that assumptions about warmer temperatures producing a rise in sea level could be false. Finally, successful experiments with ocean fertilization hold the promise of drawing down CO2 and using it to increase fish stocks.
The three reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change--each of them dense reading of 300 plus pages--have been good compilations of global warming science up to the point of publication. But few people read the IPCC reports, says Singer. Instead, they read the politically approved Policymakers Summaries, which have become notorious for consistently overstating the problem.
The reality is that the more scientists study climate, the more aware they are of its incredible complexity. "Theoretically, increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide should be enhancing the greenhouse effect, says Singer, but that doesn't appear to be happening. We need to know why. Until we do, governments should not rush forward with ill-defined schemes that have no scientific foundation, will not reduce atmospheric CO2, and--as we have seen with the Montreal Protocol banning chlorofluocarbons--are globally unenforceable."
-
Originally posted by beet1e
LOL Lazs - I didn't know David Attenborough was a religious fanatic!
Sir David is a fame/fortune profiteer. Maybe we should ask Mel Gibson what his ideas are. :)
-
Interesting read Jackal. Suspect it will be denounced as heresy by the warming alarmists.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Antarctica is breaking of very big chunks now, - bigger than known before.
What their effect will be is hard to say, - depends where they go.
Big chunks stay very long, - and smaller, but somewhat proper chunks like the one who got hit by the Titanic can take centuries to melt. (It is claimed that one has been identified)
But the thinner ice on the arctic melts faster, breaks faster etc. That one, already being in the water does NOT raise the ocean level.
Personally, I am not worrying so much about the ice melting. It will take a long time to raise the SL properly. It's the TUNDRA melting that gives me the jitters. Ask me why ....
According to this guy from Weaselsan's Al Bore thread the breaking off of ice from the Antarctica's glaciers is a naturally occuring event. As the glaciers grow and extend beyond land over sea they break off, something to do with gravity I think. If anything, an increase in this breaking off implies that the glacier is producing more ice, not less.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
-
Jackal:
"Machinery takes iron/metal to make and produce. Iron ore has to be mined/refined. ( More C02 output) This is not even considering the machinery used and C02 output produced in the exploration end of it.(Machinery) Factories have to be built and in production. (More machinery, more C02 output) Once built, the machinery has to be shipped. Whether by land or sea, it equals more machinery , more C02 output.
Your theory would pan out if the machinery magical appeared on location.......possibly. Don`t work like that."
Give me a number in the creation of machinery to play with. For I have a lot of space for it.
You can also use animal husbandry output to the calculus. That will still yeald a plus. So I guess the machinery is less beneficial?
How much energy to create a tractor that lasts 10.000 hrs compared to the oil it will burn in 10.000 hrs. MORE? naaaa.
And this:
"Your theory and figures are also based upon perfect scenarios just like the sceanarios used by global warming theorists."
I picked Danish figures I have ib ny head, and Denmark is FAR from being the perfect scenario. Want something proper? Go to the field production of the Mid West for instance.
I can also pick out Icelandic numbers. Less effective than the Danish ones...but yet on the right side.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Depends. Glaciers like those sitting on Greenland are not floating on water but rather sitting on land. Any melting there would add to the volume of the sea. However, there are a lot of unknowns, not the least of which is how much water will be absorbed by the warmer air. I've read that none of the ice in Antartica will melt due to the current warming trends but rather it will likely grow due to the increased snow fall resulting from the warmer air holding more moisture.
It does not "depend". You are assuming temperatures are only increasing over the surface of greenland? That gets an even bigger "LOL!".
This is the problem right now. People come up with completely assenine theories and then create "scenarios" where it "could" happen. These scenarios exclude considering things like science and history. What is it, exactly, that differentiates it from the common definition of "religion" again?
-
Originally posted by Mini D
It does not "depend". You are assuming temperatures are only increasing over the surface of greenland? That gets an even bigger "LOL!".
This is the problem right now. People come up with completely assenine theories and then create "scenarios" where it "could" happen. These scenarios exclude considering things like science and history. What is it, exactly, that differentiates it from the common definition of "religion" again?
Huh? You said that melting glaciers would reduce sea level. If all of the world's ice were converted to water sea levels would go up assuming the air didn't absorb it. You are the one applying a "scenario" here. I was simply trying to point out to you that most of the world's ice is on land, not water.
-
I might have posted this pic before. This was Greenland in 2001. I don't know what it looks like now.
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/greenland.jpg)
-
Originally posted by beet1e
I might have posted this pic before. This was Greenland in 2001. I don't know what it looks like now.
Can only improve, unless yer a Penguin.
-
250 posts and let's see.
Yep, it seems if you have an opinion about it, you can find backing of said opinion on the Internet. Well, at least one thing has been settled.
Oh yes, to be sure, opinions are going to change the way we live forever. hehe, ya just have to giggle a bit. By the way, I hear too much oxygen can cause cancer. I know I read it on the Internet somewhere.
-
Yeah.. Meanwhile polar bears are turning into canibals due to global warming.
-
They are turning on each other true indeed, and it may have to do with their habitad becoming smaller. (Surface of driftice gives better access to fish and ... seals).
So, it may have a link to the shrinking of ice which some here seem to belive possible without global warming.
Greenland should look roughly the same from a viewpoint as the one in the picture. You have to go to the roots to see how the glaciers are slowly giving in.
Am I the only one to have been there?
-
Never had much use for polar bears myself. Guess that in the overall scheme of things they are important to keep the seal population under control?
Hmmmm, fewer polar bears, more seals? More seals fewer fish? Fewer fish more plankton? More plankton less co2? Less co2 more ice? More ice more polar bears? Guess it all balances out. ;)
-
Originally posted by lukster
Never had much use for polar bears myself. Guess that in the overall scheme of things they are important to keep the seal population under control?
Hmmmm, fewer polar bears, more seals? More seals fewer fish? Fewer fish more plankton? More plankton less co2? Less co2 more ice? More ice more polar bears? Guess it all balances out. ;)
man u stoned..:rofl :aok
-
Yep, he stoned.
Polar bears = Grizzly aggressive and very strong animals, and although white and fluffy the only nice thing about them is the fur.
Them disappearing is no grief to many, but it bears witness to ice melting, leaving new open spaces of ocean.
-
This guy wasn't too impressed with Gore's Movie. Called it "junk science" and everything. And he seems to have the credentials to back it up...
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm (http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm)
Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe
"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists
By Tom Harris
Monday, June 12, 2006
"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."
But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?
No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.
Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."
This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.
So we have a smaller fraction.
But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."
We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.
Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:
Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"
Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."
Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."
But Karlén clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," Karlén concludes.
The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.
Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."
Karlén explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says Karlén
Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."
Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, "Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance."
Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."
Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."
In April sixty of the world's leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - it seems like a reasonable request.
Tom Harris is mechanical engineer and Ottawa Director of High Park Group, a public affairs and public policy company. He can be reached at letters@canadafreepress.com
-
i wonder why nobody has made a movie about the horrors of kyoto..?
-
Originally posted by Angus
How much energy to create a tractor that lasts 10.000 hrs compared to the oil it will burn in 10.000 hrs. MORE? naaaa.
BS. One tractor. Gonna take a litle more than that to get to the point to even be worth mentioning. Mining, transporting, factories, more factories....shipping........ ..on and on and on. Try starting at the beginning of a process instead of the end. That dog won`t hunt. :)
picked Danish figures I have ib ny head, and Denmark is FAR from being the perfect scenario. Want something proper? Go to the field production of the Mid West for instance.
Danish, Midwest, ..................it makes no difference if it`s BF Eygypt :). That is is a perfect scenario. Real life , real farming is a WHOLE lot different than on paper. It`s not a perfect science by any long shot. More like a roll of the dice. You can`t paperwork it, compute it or wish it. It`s got to be done in real life, real time. The reason you can`t predict or pattern it is the same reason you can`t say yea or nay on global warming. There are too many unpredictables and unknowns that you can`t possibly figure in.
If you are farming on paper, fine. Otherwise you have to live in reality.
I don`t know how much farming you have done, how much acreage you are farming,nor how old you are, but it can`t be much if you think it is a perfect science.
Angus, I`m just curious if possibly the reason that you are freaking out so bad and willing to shout the sky is falling might be due to the fact that this is the first time in your life that you have actualy witnessed drastic weather changes that effect most everything around you. Like I say, I don`t recall you stating your age, so I don`t know.
I`ve seen plenty of pretty drastic events in the weather from one end of the spectrum to the other.
It is considered normal in this area to have fairly mild winters, a fair amount of spring and fall rain and fairly hot, humid summers.
In my lifetime I have seen extremes that certainly vary a great deal from this.
I can recall one winter in particular when I was younger that was a real doozey. Lots and lots of ice and snow, which is unusual.
I remember one March 7th (my birthday is how I remember the date) that we had snow knee deep snow and it was cooooollllllld. Very unusual. We had registered Black Angus (you should like that :)) and a neighbor had a large polled hereford that like to come courting. On this date and a some before, some after it was calving season. Usualy pretty moderate weather. I had the fence stretchers tied to a main pole in the barn and was pulling calves most of the day. I was a popsicle by days end. Not considered normal by any stretch of the imagination for here at that time of the year.
I have seen periods of rain, rain and more rain for a stretch of a few years. I have seen droughts running consecutive years. I have seen just about every cycle there is to see I think for this area.
As it stands at the present, here on the lake, my wetdock where I moore my boat is high and dry. It`s about a hundred and fifty yards to even reach the water.
Am I freaking out over it? Nope! Why? Because I have seen this same cycle many times in my life.
Polar bears = Grizzly
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzttttttttttttttt!
Polar Bear=Ursus maritimus
Grizzly Bear= Ursus arctos
:)
-
Originally posted by lukster
Huh? You said that melting glaciers would reduce sea level.
No I didn't. You said a glacier melting would cause the sea level to rise. I said that if a glacier is melting due to global warming then so is the ice cap. If that's happening, the sea level is going to go down. "What if this glacier melted..." is a pointless scenario unless you consider that the same thing should affect other things globally. What you are saying is "if this happens and absolutely nothing else changes..." which is not science.If all of the world's ice were converted to water sea levels would go up assuming the air didn't absorb it. You are the one applying a "scenario" here. I was simply trying to point out to you that most of the world's ice is on land, not water.
If all of the world's ice melted the icebergs would lower the sea level as much as the glaciers raised it. I would even venture to say the sea level would go down just a bit, but that's speculation. "If all the ice on land would melt, but none of the ice floating in the ocean would melt" then the sea level would go up. I'd even venture a guess it could go up as much as 6". Now... let's talk about the reality of one happening without the other: Well... there's nothing much to discuss there.
-
Jackal, I am not getting you. You're getting stuck in total nonsense. Or rather, debating in a field where you are lost?
Ok. Here is a question for you:
Does it cost more energy to create a vehicle than the vehicle will consume in it's lifespan? From scratch to the end of the assembly line?
But who am I to ask, if you do not even understand the essence of photosyntesis and what soil contains?
And here:
" Real life , real farming is a WHOLE lot different than on paper."
LOL, tell me about it :D
And Mini D: You need a physics update. See here and judge:
1. If Ice on solid ground melts and runs to the sea, it means a level rise.
2. If Ice floating in the sea melts, there is status quo.
Bottom line, melt all the ice in the world, and the sea level rises...a lot.
-
In 1970 it was a new global ice age in 30 years...now it's supposed to be a hot house...get a grip. 450 million years ago the C02 levels in the atmosphere were about 10 times higher than now. Oh, that was in the middle of an ice age. Can't we all just stipulate the obvious? The Earth's climate is constantly changing, it is always either warming up or cooling down. As far as all the "scientists" that support the hysteria? They're not much different from the "Nobel Prize" winner in Chemistry being trotted out to protest a war. Most know nothing more about it than we do. Bottom line, no point in destroying civilization to "save the planet" when it isn't dying.
Mace
-
Originally posted by Angus
Jackal, I am not getting you. You're getting stuck in total nonsense. Or rather, debating in a field where you are lost?
Ok. Here is a question for you:
Does it cost more energy to create a vehicle than the vehicle will consume in it's lifespan? From scratch to the end of the assembly line?
But who am I to ask, if you do not even understand the essence of photosyntesis and what soil contains?
And here:
" Real life , real farming is a WHOLE lot different than on paper."
LOL, tell me about it :D
And Mini D: You need a physics update. See here and judge:
1. If Ice on solid ground melts and runs to the sea, it means a level rise.
2. If Ice floating in the sea melts, there is status quo.
Bottom line, melt all the ice in the world, and the sea level rises...a lot.
I have to agree with ya on the part about sea level going up, a lot, if all the ice melts. I don't think mini-d knows how much ice there is on land, a great deal more than is floating. All the rest in regards to whether or not the climate is changing and why is up for debate and a matter of pure speculation, even for all of the scientists studying it.
-
Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."
Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe (http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm)
-
Originally posted by Angus
And Mini D: You need a physics update. See here and judge:
1. If Ice on solid ground melts and runs to the sea, it means a level rise.
2. If Ice floating in the sea melts, there is status quo.
Ice on solid ground melts all the time... that is also the status quo. Water temperature rising 1 degree is going to cause a hell of alot more ice melting than air temperature rising one degree. That's also physics.
I don't really think you understand it at all.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Originally posted by beet1e
I might have posted this pic before. This was Greenland in 2001. I don't know what it looks like now.
Can only improve, unless yer a Penguin.
There are just as many penguins in Greenland as polar bears in Antartica.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
If man did not exist then the forests would burn in huge forest fires and release all the fossilized carbon...
lazs
There's fossilised carbon in trees?
Hmmm, mebbe that's what broke my chainsaw. Gotta stop livin next to a petrified forest, I guess.
-
MiniD what are you hanging on here?
"Ice on solid ground melts all the time... that is also the status quo. Water temperature rising 1 degree is going to cause a hell of alot more ice melting than air temperature rising one degree. That's also physics.
I don't really think you understand it at all."
It will have to be replaced with other Ice. Get it?
-
Yet another little goodie:
(http://www.actionbioscience.org/environment/figures/chantontemperature.gif)
From here:
http://www.actionbioscience.org/environment/chanton.html
Ooopsie:
"Global sea level rise is caused by two factors. One is the delivery of water to the ocean as land ice melts, such as mountain glaciers and polar icecaps. Current evidence of global warming includes the widespread retreat of glaciers on 5 continents. For example:
The ice cap on Mount Kilimanjaro may be gone in 20 years. About 1/3 of Kilimanjaro's ice field has disappeared in the last 12 years and 82% of it has vanished since it was first mapped in 1912.
Sea ice in the Arctic Ocean is thinning.
Massive Antarctic ice sheets have collapsed into the sea with alarming rapidity. "
Does it measure?
"Global ocean levels are rising twice as fast today as they were 150 years ago, and human-induced warming appears to be the culprit, say scientists at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, and collaborating institutions. "
Sure?
"Warming ocean = rising ocean?
After the last ice age, the rapid melting of glaciers rapidly raised sea level. That melting tapered off about 6,000 years ago, and sea level -- compared to land -- became fairly stable. However, over the past century, sea level over much of the United States has risen by 25 to 30 centimeters relative to land, according to Jim Titus, the Environmental Protection Agency's project manager on sea level rise. Even that figure is a guesstimate, Titus says. "We only know that sea level last century rose more than average over the last several thousand years." "
link: http://whyfiles.org/091beach/5.html
So, more is melting than freezing up again and more is melting than the driftice. The melting is already raising the sea level.
I don't see a quick doomsday here for Antarctica will hold quite long. But if I take a look into the CO2 camp, - Beetles camp, I grow pesstimistic.
"Prior to the advent of the industrial age, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 280 ppm (parts per million).
Today it's over 360 ppm. That's an increase of about 30% in less than 300 years."
Double that again with human emission. No record yet, but we already hold the record in human times. And...the warming will accelerate this.
The Tundra gives me the jitters as well as a rapidly warming ocean...
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzttttttttttttttt!
Polar Bear=Ursus maritimus
Grizzly Bear= Ursus arctos
:)
I rather think that Angus was comparing the polar bear with the grizzly bear in terms of its aggression. The grizzly bear is now extinct in the continental US, but is still in Alaska. In states like CA, there is still the "black" bear, although not all are black. Some are even blonde!
Hmmph, when I went into Yosemite Pk in 2001, I remember reading all the warnings not to leave food in your vehicle, or else the bears could smell it and would try to get it. They even showed pictures of cases where this had happened. Those bears could rip body panels open in their quest to get at the food. I could never have imagined their power without seeing those pics. Anyway, the grizzly bear is a much more fearsome beast. The way I've seen it described is that if you were to come up against one, you're dead. Not even an olympic sprinter could run fast enough to escape....
...and what Angus was trying to say is that the polar bear is equivalent to the grizzly in terms of aggression, and (I believe) size. Sorry this wasn't obvious to everyone.
Not really on topic, but a little of what Holden would call "levity" would not go adrift in this thread.
By the way Holden, fix your quote of me. I didn't say anything about penguins.
-
Polar Bear is a little smaller than the Grizzly, but packs a punch.
Can be very agressive. Therefore I call it grizzly, not "A" Grizzly.
I once stayed a night in Kulusuk, eastern Greenland. I stayed in a shack, and I was soaking and cold. I found matches and there was a gas cooker there. When I was looking for the matches, I noticed that there was a gun cleaning kit there, and various sorts of ammo. 30-06, 303 and 12 gauge.
When asking about it the day after, they told me they forgot to have a gun there. Polar bears frequently walk in for a meal. So, they get shot mighty quick. There had been some 8 that year so far (in Town), and the last one got shot right in front of the town church!
-
Beetle, I was quoting lukster, and it looks like he did not have a close quote on his quote of yours that was just the caption of the greenland pic.
Angus using your post, you quote "Global ocean levels are rising twice as fast today as they were 150 years ago, and human-induced warming appears to be the culprit, say scientists at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, and collaborating institutions."
In that article* it also says, "The findings establish a steady millimeter-per-year rise from 5,000 years ago until about 200 years ago."
So twice as fast would be 2 mm/yr.
Then you quote, "However, over the past century, sea level over much of the United States has risen by 25 to 30 centimeters relative to land, according to Jim Titus, the Environmental Protection Agency's project manager on sea level rise. Even that figure is a guesstimate, Titus says. "We only know that sea level last century rose more than average over the last several thousand years."
250 to 300 mm / hundred yrs is 2.5 to 3 mm/yr.
Which expert is right?
*also found at science daily (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051124220656.htm)
-
Al Gore worries the world's getting hot,
And all over the globe he will trot,
Warmly warning the masses
About grave greenhouse gases
Caused by people who travel a lot.
-- F.R. Duplantier
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
And when did we offically begin keeping historic weather records? The past 80 years? Compare that to the planet, which is more than a billion years old....
Then, over the last 80 years, we've been heating up. And as far as earth being a billion + years old. i don't think that is the case at all.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
hap
-
Originally posted by Angus
Jackal, I am not getting you. You're getting stuck in total nonsense. Or rather, debating in a field where you are lost?
I can see where you are not getting me Angus. :) Where the nonsense comes in is when you start in the middle or nearing the end of a process instead of the beginning. One of us is lost Angus..and I don`t believe it is me. :)
Does it cost more energy to create a vehicle than the vehicle will consume in it's lifespan? From scratch to the end of the assembly line?
Makes no difference Angus. Fuel consumption from the tractor is not factoring end the process of it`s being built, shipped, etc. from the beginning of the process. It also doesn`t factor in the C02 produced and emitted. It doesn`t factor in the C02 emiited in the exploration, drilling, recovery,refining, producing, shipping, etc even of the fuel itself. Remember...we`re talking your global warming theory here that you are in such a frenzy over. If you have a theoretical cure for this highly theoretical problem, then you will have to consider starting at the BEGINNING of the process for the cure, not in the middle or near the end. Old saying here "That`s like burning down the barn to get rid of the rats."
But who am I to ask, if you do not even understand the essence of photosyntesis and what soil contains?
LOL OK.......is this the point we start insulting each other? I certainly hope not. I can do that with Beetle. :)
There is no answer to a problem that hasn`t even been proved to be a problem yet. (global warming)
If one thing has been shown in this thread it is that there is mass confusion and total uncertainty concerning the theory of global warming.
The one thing that I have seen that makes more sense and carries more weight, to me, in anything I have read concerning this so far is this line from the article I posted...."The reality is that the more scientists study climate, the more aware they are of its incredible complexity."
I ,for one, like to know that there actualy is a problem , before the entire world is forced to go on a wild goose chase. The fact is, that it is just plain unknown. I don`t consider natural changes in the earth to be a problem......at least to the point of believing we can change the natural course of mother nature. If I did I would be living on the wrong planet. :)
-
Originally posted by Angus
Yet another little goodie:
[IMG]"Global sea level rise is caused by two factors. One is the delivery of water to the ocean as land ice melts, such as mountain glaciers and polar icecaps.
BZZZZZZZZT.
Unless the polar icecap is frozen over something solid, which it is not in most places, this is not the case. If I giant mountain size chunk of ice breaks off of it and floats in the ocean, the rest of the ice will rise just a little because it's mass has been reduced. That will cause a drop in sea level. The huge new iceburg will then displace an equivelent amount of water. The only thing is that now there is a larger surface area of ice that will be exposed to air and water which means it melts faster.... causing the effective level to drop.
Does it measure?
"Warming ocean = rising ocean?
After the last ice age, the rapid melting of glaciers rapidly raised sea level. That melting tapered off about 6,000 years ago, and sea level -- compared to land -- became fairly stable. However, over the past century, sea level over much of the United States has risen by 25 to 30 centimeters relative to land, according to Jim Titus, the Environmental Protection Agency's project manager on sea level rise. Even that figure is a guesstimate, Titus says. "We only know that sea level last century rose more than average over the last several thousand years."
An unbiased source to be sure, with the "it's just a guess" caveate.
What part of florida is being flooded out again? I know... the flooding in Louisianna is proof of it. Wait... it's the ummmm.
1/3 of killimanjaro's glacier has melted and nobody's noticed. There's a doom and gloom for you. This is because of global warming... because precipitation has nothing to do with an glacier reducing in size, it's all about global warming.
This is religion with most folks. They believe something and they're looking for anything that supports it. Nobody from your camp will point to a glacier that's growing in size. That is counter productive. It's important to remember that there are glaciers that are shrinking on FIVE CONTINENTS!... and less important to remember they didn't say "all of the glaciers on five continents are shrinking". This is not science. It's panic inducing datamining.
1) create panic
2) ask for money
Really... spend some time thinking about that when you read these things.
-
WOOT!
1. A chunk of ice falling from solid ground into water will increase the level of the water. Try getting into yer bathtub M8 and see what happens.
2. That chunk melting in the water will not affect the volume. Make a test, put an icecube in yer whiskyglass. Whisky rises. Wait untill it melts. Whisky stays in the high level.
And here:
"BZZZZZZZZT.
Unless the polar icecap is frozen over something solid, which it is not in most places"
It is. The main volume is in Antarctica. The amount stored on the land of Greenland is also quite impressive.
But again, I said this:
"I don't see a quick doomsday here for Antarctica will hold quite long."
And Jackal. I am serious. You're lost here.
Oil. How much energy goes getting it compared to the energy output? NEVER MORE THAN THE ENERGY OUTPUT. Or do you need a liter of oil to bring a liter to the gas station?????????
And how much energy goes into creating, say a Tractor. Would be very logical to assume LESS than the vehicle consumes in its lifespan. Actually you should be able to calculate it from the price of it. It cannot cost more than a certain value in energy.......
And Photosyntesis and the function and containance of soil, biomass, - the very essence of properly vegetated areas do bind up CO2. You only need a share of the area to maintain itself with the charbon needed for the job. Depends on where on the globe you are.
-
Angus, one of the articles you just quoted said that ice is breaking off from Antarctica at an alarming rate. I mentioned this before and pointed out that since Antarctica is no where near melting, any part of it, this can only be caused by an increase in the amount of ice building up there. Won't you agree then that that author is being either very disingenuous or ignorant?
I'll concede that we really don't know why the ice there may be breaking off at an increasing rate.
-
Originally posted by Angus
And Jackal. I am serious. You're lost here.
Oil. How much energy goes getting it compared to the energy output? NEVER MORE THAN THE ENERGY OUTPUT. Or do you need a liter of oil to bring a liter to the gas station?????????
And how much energy goes into creating, say a Tractor. Would be very logical to assume LESS than the vehicle consumes in its lifespan. Actually you should be able to calculate it from the price of it. It cannot cost more than a certain value in energy.......
No Angus, I disagree. It is you that are lost IMHO. You are still using magic wand as if the said tractor or tractors magical appear on location of use. Not the case. You are not even considering iron ore exploration, mining, refining to the point of use. Then the shiiping and production of metal for parts, the factories involved in the making of the parts......more shipping ....more factories for production.....more shipping. Factories and operations, vehciles to shp..all belching mass, mass quanities of C02 in the process. Same with oil exploration, drilling , refining , shipping..on and on and on. Your dog won`t hunt bud. :) You are suggesting burning down the barn to kill the rats. Then you will turn right around and suggest that vehicles using oil byproducts should be eliminated to reduce C02 emmisions. Can`t have your cake and eat it too. Things just do not magical appear. They have to be built.
And Photosyntesis and the function and containance of soil, biomass, - the very essence of properly vegetated areas do bind up CO2. You only need a share of the area to maintain itself with the charbon needed for the job. Depends on where on the globe you are.
As said before.....granted. But if mass areas of forest/vegetation are left untended/unthinned/unharvested, such as would be the case in your mass forests theory, they will emit more C02 than can be bound, It will enter the atmosphere. (rotting,decomposition) Otherwise you wouldn`t be worried or concerned about the permafrost. :)
The true effects are not known due to the unknowns/unpredictables not being availble to enter into scenarios/equations when it comes to the global warming theory. Noone can predict or put them into a sterile scenario/theory/equation. They are just that...unknowns.
-
Lukster:
"Angus, one of the articles you just quoted said that ice is breaking off from Antarctica at an alarming rate. I mentioned this before and pointed out that since Antarctica is no where near melting, any part of it, this can only be caused by an increase in the amount of ice building up there. Won't you agree then that that author is being either very disingenuous or ignorant?"
Firstly, do you have a source there?
Secondly, tell me from WHAT is the sea level rising?
For although the N-Pole is melting swiftly that icemass bobbing in the ocean does NOT raise the SL.
Thirdly, why is there only an increased meltdown up north ???? N-Polar melting exclusive?
And Jackal:
"As said before.....granted. But if mass areas of forest/vegetation are left untended/unthinned/unharvested, such as would be the case in your mass forests theory, they will emit more C02 than can be bound, It will enter the atmosphere. (rotting,decomposition) Otherwise you wouldn`t be worried or concerned about the permafrost."
Absolute nonsense and this has gone 180 degrees in your head.
"Free" or "Wild" forests bind more material then they release. It's called soil. Therefore it has been excercized in quite notable amounts in the 20th century to take a "rotting" forest, burn it down for quick access to the soil (thereby emitting all the Charbon tied in the upper biomass) then planting and replanting the soil untill all the "juice" is gone. The leftover will corrode or become a modest grassland. Lovely and smart, isn't it. Example: Brazil.
And that IS why I worry about the meltings of the Tundra. The permafrost stores ancient remains of boglands and other dead greenmass. It contains vast amounts of C and Methane. Ooops, how does vegetation store methane?
Second one.
"No Angus, I disagree. It is you that are lost IMHO. You are still using magic wand as if the said tractor or tractors magical appear on location of use. Not the case. You are not even considering iron ore exploration, mining, refining to the point of use. Then the shiiping and production of metal for parts, the factories involved in the making of the parts......more shipping ....more factories for production.....more shipping. Factories and operations, vehciles to shp..all belching mass, mass quanities of C02 in the process. Same with oil exploration, drilling , refining , shipping..on and on and on."
Give me a number. It has to be very very high. To axcept your point is 2 things:
1. Mechanized Agriculture cannot but emit more C than it binds.
2. Therefore non-mechanized Agriculture would be better.
And again, show some figures. Flash the cash. Like I said, this is a calculable point, - a point of pivot where the energy costs of creating machinery exceed the practical level. Claim this if you like, but I've sure never heard anyone claim it before.
I didn't claim they appear in thin air, don't try to turn things into such nonsense. But there is a limit to the cost.
BTW, a Typical tractor like mine will probably consume a few times its own price worth in fuel. If the energy costs in creating that piece of equipment are more than what it costs on the market, who bears the loss? Get me?
-
Originally posted by Angus
Secondly, tell me from WHAT is the sea level rising?
For although the N-Pole is melting swiftly that icemass bobbing in the ocean does NOT raise the SL.
Thirdly, why is there only an increased meltdown up north ???? N-Polar melting exclusive?
Are you saying that sea level is rising? What is your source?
What I've been reading is that ice has been melting in one place while reforming in another in continuous cycles for all of recorded history.
What you're article stated was that ice is breaking off from Antarctica in record levels. It does not say whether it is due to melting of the shelves or simply that more ice is being produced which naturally results in more breaking off at the edges. I don't know which it is and I suspect that at this time neither does anyone else.
-
Sea levels rising. Yes.
Try google :D
You might even find out by how much...approximately.
Some land is rising too so the measuring is a bit tough.
So, there is a debate, not whether the SL is rising but by how much exactly.
And here's another physics test.
Take a glass of water. Put a line on the glass at the waterlevel. Pour one ounce into a little form and freeze it. You will now observe that the level is below the line. Now put the frozen water into the glass again. Where is the line compared to the waterlevel now?
-
Originally posted by Angus
And Jackal:
"Free" or "Wild" forests bind more material then they release. It's called soil. Therefore it has been excercized in quite notable amounts in the 20th century to take a "rotting" forest, burn it down for quick access to the soil (thereby emitting all the Charbon tied in the upper biomass) then planting and replanting the soil untill all the "juice" is gone. The leftover will corrode or become a modest grassland.
Free or wild forests? We`re talking your mystical , magical mass forests that you claimed cure to global warming. They don`t magicaly appear Angus. They will have to be planted . To plant they will have to have machinery. To have the machinery someone has to build it. When built, they have to have and burn fuel. To get the fuel it has to be explored, drilled, tapped, refined and shipped. Just like all of the above. Things simply just do not magical appear. Start at the start of this magical solution of yours. Incluide all steps. Not just the latter.
Then when you get to that point you have forests that will , if not thinned, will have fallen timber , which will rot.decay. In the process not all C02 is bound. It is released into the atmosphere. Just as your global warming theorists suggest. They are worried about the existing, not the mystical, yet to be planted.
Then......................... ...
Give me a number.
You are the paper/computer farmer, not me. I would rather deal with reality.
1. Mechanized Agriculture cannot but emit more C than it binds.
Wheeeeeeeew talk about your 180s. )
Sure it emits more...in big, big loads. That`s the point I have been putting forth and you have been pulling the magic wands. You are figuring from when the machinery is on the spot/in place/on site. Whatever you wish to call it. You can`t wave that magic wand and get the machinery to appear. There is many, many steps before the machinery is on site. All of which produce mass amounts of C02 which is spewed into the atmosphere. Then as has been explained many, many times so far....the fuel does not magicaly appear on site. Many, many steps before it reachs that point all of which spews mass amounts of C02 in the air.
Up to this point I haven`t even mentioned the plastics, rubber, glass, alloy production and shipping of such. All of which produce mass amounts of C02 that is put into the atmosphere.
2. Therefore non-mechanized Agriculture would be better.
LMAO........Yea...haul out the Ancient Eygyptians.
And again, show some figures. Flash the cash. Like I said, this is a calculable point, - a point of pivot where the energy costs of creating machinery exceed the practical level. Claim this if you like, but I've sure never heard anyone claim it before.
Try common sense. Works real well.
I didn't claim they appear in thin air, don't try to turn things into such nonsense. But there is a limit to the cost.
No. You are just putting them on site magiical . :) That`s the nonsense.
The nonsense is not taking the theory from the beginning , instead of trying to start in the middle or near the end. It is a fairy tale at that point. Which it is anyway, but hey.......................... ..........:)
BTW, a Typical tractor like mine will probably consume a few times its own price worth in fuel. If the energy costs in creating that piece of equipment are more than what it costs on the market, who bears the loss? Get me?
Loss, smoss. Dollars/cents. I could care less. I don`t think your tractor can be counted upon to plant these mass forests of yours. :)
Get back to your mystical forests to cure global warming.
To undertake such a project on such a scale that would even show up in a percentage of one percent...you would have to either take the current factories/refineries, etc and either add to them by building more.or increase the current ones production by 10, 20,30, 40 fold.
Now ...are you trying to tell me that the forests/vegetation planted with the machinery produced, factoring in the unimagianable amounts of C02 spewed into the atmosphere would be taken care of by the amount of forests/vewgetation planted? Horse crap.
If that were true , then the global warming theory would immediately have to be thrown out the window and considered a fairy tale by everyone. (which btw it is by a lot of us:)) The reason being, is that if it were true, then there would be no problem to begin with because the current forests/vegetation would be taking care of existing pollutants with room to spare.
Either that, or the so called scientists would be suggesting the exact opposite of what is currently be suggested. That being that we should crank up/increase oil byproduct/fuel useage to the max build/transport machinery and oil to plant these mystical,magical forests.
The whole kit and kaboodle is a load of horse crap.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Sea levels rising. Yes.
Try google :D
You might even find out by how much...approximately.
Some land is rising too so the measuring is a bit tough.
So, there is a debate, not whether the SL is rising but by how much exactly.
And here's another physics test.
Take a glass of water. Put a line on the glass at the waterlevel. Pour one ounce into a little form and freeze it. You will now observe that the level is below the line. Now put the frozen water into the glass again. Where is the line compared to the waterlevel now?
Not significantly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Hehe.
Well, we do know for a fact the ozone layer has been depleted over the polar ice caps at both poles. Seems to me, more UV, more meltage.
The problem I have with virtually every study I have seen/read is they either do not list all the variables they included in the study, or they list them and they are falling way short of all the potential variables.
A study looking a CO2 increases, and nothing else, is rather useless. One that adds water vapor is still useless. There are just too many variables involved for any current study to make an absolute statement about what is going on and way it is happening.
No problem...I have the perfect PC solution. We can launch the shuttle and install a large condom over the hole in the ozone. Then we can all have safe sun.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Sea levels rising. Yes.
Try google :D
You might even find out by how much...approximately.
Some land is rising too so the measuring is a bit tough.
So, there is a debate, not whether the SL is rising but by how much exactly.
And here's another physics test.
Take a glass of water. Put a line on the glass at the waterlevel. Pour one ounce into a little form and freeze it. You will now observe that the level is below the line. Now put the frozen water into the glass again. Where is the line compared to the waterlevel now?
Sea level could rise by 1 to 4 inches in the next 5,000 years. I have seen places around the Globe that has tidal shifts of over 40 meters. Hit the rack in forty meters of water, wake up high and dry.
-
Ok Jackal
"They don`t magicaly appear Angus. They will have to be planted . To plant they will have to have machinery. To have the machinery someone has to build it. When built, they have to have and burn fuel. To get the fuel it has to be explored, drilled, tapped, refined and shipped. Just like all of the above. Things simply just do not magical appear. Start at the start of this magical solution of yours. Incluide all steps. Not just the latter.
Then when you get to that point you have forests that will , if not thinned, will have fallen timber , which will rot.decay. In the process not all C02 is bound. It is released into the atmosphere. Just as your global warming theorists suggest. They are worried about the existing, not the mystical, yet to be planted."
Care to bring any numbers here....once again. You seem to be stuck with a theory that you cannot support.
But yet here is one thing:
"Then when you get to that point you have forests that will , if not thinned, will have fallen timber , which will rot.decay. In the process not all C02 is bound"
Not all CO2 is bound. Just the value of the C stuck and piling up in the soil. Just What I keep saying. Then there is a lot of C in the biomass itself. A forest binds C and emits O2, - that is the essence of photosynthesis.
As a sidenote, increased CO2 in the atmosphere increases the C binding in photosyntesis, - this is deliberately used in Greenhouse growing under certain circumstances. I guess you know all about that too?
The mystical yet to be planted doesn't even have to be a forest. Anything at all is better than a desert. Anything.
And Weaselsan. Try a calculator. According to our current sea level rising WITHOUT it increasing, we are not talking about 4 inches, but some 50 feet in the period you mentioned. Your 4 inches happened twice last century (oops, you could twist that one :D)
Anyway, good night Gents...
-
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1e/Holocene_Sea_Level.png)
Risking another chart here. ;)
Looks like a slow increase over a long period of time with fluctuations from time to time to me.
-
The scale is a bit...rough
Here's one:
(http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/GlobalWarming/Images/sea_level_rt.gif)
From Nasa
Good link:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Observatory/
-
Another one...Nasa again.
(http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/Images/sealevel_jason_200606.gif)
-
And here we have a "natural" swing in temperature that I have mentioned before, the little Ice-age.
(http://vathena.arc.nasa.gov/curric/land/global/tchgc.gif)
(As well as the Warm medieval period.)
Zooming in a bit:
(http://www.cet.edu/ete/images/modules/climate/GCclimate1PICT3.gif)
sort of explains why so many are jittery about warming. It happens rather fast.
Well we'll just wait and see ;)
-
Originally posted by Angus
Ok Jackal
Care to bring any numbers here....once again. You seem to be stuck with a theory that you cannot support.
Once again......I will leave the perfect scenarios to you. You are the perfect scenario paper/computer farmer theorist. This should be no hill for a stepper. :rofl
The numbers cannot be put forth Angus, because just like the unknowns/unpredictables in the global warming theory....they are just that.....unknowns.
As a sidenote, increased CO2 in the atmosphere increases the C binding in photosyntesis, - this is deliberately used in Greenhouse growing under certain circumstances. I guess you know all about that too?
Yes it will increase it........to a point. The earth is not a friggen geenhouse. It is not a controlled , perfect sceanrio. The earth`s atmosphere has to many unknowns/unpredictables.
The mystical yet to be planted doesn't even have to be a forest. Anything at all is better than a desert. Anything.
Hilarious.
I can save you some time and trouble. You can put up the pointy toed shoes. You can put up the jars of pixie dust. You can store the magic wand. You can forget about the perfect scenario farming. You can cease the "start in the middle" theories that work out perfect.
Here`s why.............It Ain`t Gonna Happen.
The global warming theory will be hashed around , back and forth, for a while. It will be argued and disputed and argued some more. A little flash will be put forth...just enough to cost us some bucks, but not enough to make a percentage of one percent difference one way or the other. Then it will be shuffled to the bottom of the deck and the next line of doomsdayers will come up with some other off the friggen wall, sky is falling, we`re all doomed fairy tale........and off it will go once again.
In the mean time most people will be dealing with reality. People will not be trying to cure unsupported, unpredictable , unprovable problems that they can do nothing about that has been born in the minds of soothsayers.
The earth will stay in a constant state of change just as it always has. Reality will hold true. Fantasy will stay just that...fantasy.
-
Originally posted by Angus
I guess you know all about that too?
I guess it`s off topic a bit , but since you seem to be getting a little touchy here I`m gonna comment.
Angus I know all about absolutely noting. Neither does anyone I have ever known or met. I`ve met some that profess to, but hey............:)
At my age I can`t tell you everything that I have done or been involved with I don`t beleive. I can tell you some.
You mentioned that you were probably the only one here on the board with an agriculture education. For those of my age, in this area, it was pretty common to have at least two to four years of agriculture in your studies. I had four. :)
I was born and raised on the farm. As most here did, we had crop and stock farming. That`s where you learn the realities on farming. You live it. You deal with reality and not a book or theory.
I did a stint With Texas Farm Bureau. A real eye opener.
I drove cross country for quite a few years.
I did carpentry/custom cabinet and trim.
I have done service work.....AC/heating, etc.
I have farmed.
I have been involved with formulating of feeds. cattle/ horse.
I have ran and owned custom farming operations. Custom hay baling operations. Custom combining.
I have been in sales.
I was a fully licensed insurance salesman at one time. (hated it, but probably made more money there than anywhere)
At one time I was running two stock operations. (cattle)
I have raised just about every animal I know of for a sideline at one time or the other.
I have ran and owned welding shops. ( I love it)
I have ran and owned a biker supply business. (loved it/miss it)
I have done auto mechanics/bike mechanics.
I have done high risk security work.
I have done recovery work on a few occasions.
This is not all, but some. Some of these times I had two to three things going at once.
I bore easy. :)
No Angus, I am not an expert at anything. I am a Jack of all trades, master of none.
What can I say. :)
Hehe! Had to come back for an edit to add.........
At one time, one of my cousins and myself had a small 50 acre farm rented. We rented it mainly to have a place to hang out and drink a few cools one at and to grow some veggies for our personal use. The farm had three fairly large barns on it in good shape. We put in a pork raising/fattening operation. We ended up with about 200 porkers at any given time. You want comedy? I should write a book. :)
-
angus.. all your charts show that there are bigger tempreture swings in the past than now. Looking at 1000 ad to about 1100 ad.... you and beet would have been apopleptic looking at all the global warming.... all those horses or something maybe?
Then..1200 or so to 1300... the dive in temp... Both those events would exceed in both change and rapidity of change the changes over our last 100 years..
So then....you show charts that cover 50 years or less up to today showing a huge rise. How bout you transpose one of the 1000ad charts over the 1900 to date charts.
Point is... there have been much worse, and more rapid tempreture changes in the past... who do you blame them on? Where was kyoto then?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Where was kyoto then?
lazs
I beleive they were holding meetings in a cave cafe......................... .....in Qatar. :rofl
-
Everyone throws those charts around like they prove something. All they show is things are getting warmer or the sea is getting a bit higher.
They do not prove that global warming is man made, if anything, they show it happend in the past and it looks normal.
This really is very religion like for some of you.
Its funny you don't see it, but hey fanatics are like that.
-
Oh, Gtora, quite right. No graphs ever show anything, especially if based on measurements.
OOps, you said they show that things are getting warmer and the sea higher?!?!
The mainstray of the debate is twofold. Whether it's getting warmer and whether it's man-made. I am voting for the first one, and getting a crapload of...crap on my head for it. So on to Jackal:
"Ok Jackal...again...
"Originally posted by Angus
Ok Jackal
Care to bring any numbers here....once again. You seem to be stuck with a theory that you cannot support.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once again......I will leave the perfect scenarios to you. You are the perfect scenario paper/computer farmer theorist. This should be no hill for a stepper.
The numbers cannot be put forth Angus, because just like the unknowns/unpredictables in the global warming theory....they are just that.....unknowns. "
Firstly this refers to how much value of energy goes into creating machinery. Even though your impressive CV is there, your statement needs an answer. So step yer hill and explain how a piece of machinerey can be sold at a less price than the energy AND effort that went into it.
Secondly, your reply has the scent of being a bit personal. Want me to compete in a pissing contest about who did what and so on because not being able to focus on the logics burns a bit?
Well, calling me a scenario paper/computer farmer theorist and a perfect one as well, is nothing but a desperate measure. (Actually an insult)
And to quote some of your CV and answer......here ya go:
"I have farmed."
Me too. Am still at it. It's been 19 years now. Not a perfect scenario.
"I have been involved with formulating of feeds. cattle/ horse."
Everydays business
"I have ran and owned custom farming operations. Custom hay baling operations. Custom combining."
Very much a part of my game. Mostly bailing and seeding.
I'll give you some fun facts.
I worked as a farm hand in Germany.
I worked in the fish industries.
I have planted thousands of hectares of various herbs.
I have milked 35 cows with bucket machines while I had 3 ribs broken.
I also pulled out a tooth of mine myself. (make that ...more)
My accountant told me I should never be left in the same room as a sheet of paper.
My household people call me the local "Neanderthal".
I lived in a tent for some 4 months. Twice. (was easy)
I was welding the other day. Succeeded, which was good for I didn't have the bloody helmet.
I have a Russian shotgun who is held together with tape. I use it.
I have a barrel outside with salted horsemeat.
I smoke my saltmeat with sheepdung and birch.
I shoot some of my to-be dinners myself.
My socks have holes in them. Despite those:
I still have a whiff of global warming.
I can forget that for a moment though for saying:
" You are the perfect scenario paper/computer farmer theorist"
Is a very miscalculated assumption, or just an insult.
Well, yell when you're out of ammo....
-
Originally posted by Angus
I was welding the other day. Succeeded, which was good for I didn't have the bloody helmet.
Ray Charles tried welding without a helmet...
I have a barrel outside with salted horsemeat.
I smoke my saltmeat with sheepdung and birch.
Sounds delicious (cough cough)
My socks have holes in them.
All my socks have at least one hole, otherwise I could not pull them over my feet.
-
HoleS. Plural :D
-
well all i can say is wait and i hope the end is near for are lil earth =)
-
Originally posted by Angus
Firstly this refers to how much value of energy goes into creating machinery. Even though your impressive CV is there, your statement needs an answer. So step yer hill and explain how a piece of machinerey can be sold at a less price than the energy AND effort that went into it.
Ummmmm......Angus...we`re talking C02 ouput to the atmosphere. The point is...if you start at the BEGINNING of the process , instead of in the middle or near the end, such as you seem to do, you will be producing more C02 than you can ever hope to take care of.Remember? Remember the global warming theory you`re so fond of? Could care less about dollars/cents as stated before. It doesn`t enter into global warming...........other than it will end up costing us in the long run for nothing....or be forgotten all together.
Secondly, your reply has the scent of being a bit personal. Want me to compete in a pissing contest about who did what and so on because not being able to focus on the logics burns a bit?
There is one of us here who can`t focus on logics. It`s not me. :)
Well, calling me a scenario paper/computer farmer theorist and a perfect one as well, is nothing but a desperate measure. (Actually an insult)
Angus maybe you need to work on not being so sensitive and not worry so much about unsubstantiated fairy tales. . :)
You are the one throwing out perfect , sterile, scenario formulas and such.
Once again, it you are insulted it is self inflicted.
I'll give you some fun facts.I worked as a farm hand in Germany.
I worked in the fish industries.
I have planted thousands of hectares of various herbs.
I have milked 35 cows with bucket machines while I had 3 ribs broken.
I also pulled out a tooth of mine myself. (make that ...more)
My accountant told me I should never be left in the same room as a sheet of paper.
My household people call me the local "Neanderthal".
I lived in a tent for some 4 months. Twice. (was easy)
I was welding the other day. Succeeded, which was good for I didn't have the bloody helmet.
I have a Russian shotgun who is held together with tape. I use it.
I have a barrel outside with salted horsemeat.
I smoke my saltmeat with sheepdung and birch.
I shoot some of my to-be dinners myself.
My socks have holes in them. Despite those:
Ummmmm..that`s.............errrrrr...........ummmm.............great Angus. :rolleyes: Put down the paper and mend those socks. :)
If you wish to get off into exploits...well don`t believe there is enough room here. :)
By chance did you have to walk to school, in the snow, uphill both ways...with a cold biscuit?
I can forget that for a moment though for saying:" You are the perfect scenario paper/computer farmer theorist"
Is a very miscalculated assumption, or just an insult.
Best way I can help you on this Angus, if it`s causing you such anguish, is to quit formulating perfect scenarios and trying to make them fly. It`s the same thing the global warming theorists/scientists are trying to do. They don`t fly either.
Well, yell when you're out of ammo....
Ahhhhhh don`t be so down hearted. You will come up with something. :):rofl
-
the global warming has some good side effects for shipping
As ice melts, debate over Northwest Passage heats (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-04-03-nwpassage-debate_x.htm)
-
Interesting.
Anyone else find this humorous:
"Some issues go beyond rationality," says Rob Huebert, associate director of the University of Calgary's Center for Military and Strategic Studies. "Any sign of an affront to northern sovereignty is absolutely guaranteed to get on the front page of all the newspapers."
What're they gonna do next, fart in our general direction? :p
-
"Harper's election campaign included promises to invest $5.3 billion Canadian dollars in northern defense, including three armed ice breakers, a deep-water port near Iqaluit by the eastern entrance to the passage and more soldiers stationed in Canada's far north."
LMAO
Translation: Four new canoes ,manned by eight rock throwing apes in overcoats. :)
-
angus... I used to be a biker back when it was...well... different. I am sure we could swap tough guy stories. so what?
So what holds your computer together... dung or tape? Do you plug it into your salted horsemeat?
I have 40 pairs of socks these days so I don't have to do laundry much anymore. I throw away ones that are worn out these days too. In the biker days.. a pair of levis weren't any good till they were 6 months old without washing.
I have had teeth broken/knocked out... I have lost and had reatached a leg (that was fairly painful and stressful) I have pulled other peoples teeth and sewn em up. My back was broke twice... also fairly painful. I might start a tack weld by looking away just as I get an arc... not a good habit.
as you can see... I have done some not too bright things in my life but......
If I lived in a place that was melting and I believed that it was gonna continue to..... for any reason..
I would move.
lazs
-
Hell, I`ve sewn myself up..............but I never used it as a qualification for anything.....or on a job app.
I must admit I didn`t do it while milking 35 cows. :rofl
35 cows? Hobby farmer?
-
LMAO
Translation: Four new canoes ,manned by eight rock throwing apes in overcoats. :) [/B]
I ussed to work for a Princess Cruises, and i remember was a news in "ship"s daily newspaper" ,the company ussed to pay close to 100.000$, every time we crossed the Panama, for 77 000 tons ship,
I think that's what our politicians have in mind
Soo, if you want to get a shortcutt ,have to pay for driving on Nortwest turnpike :)
If not our eskimos special forces is going to prepare an ambush for aircraftcarriers
Remember that comedy movie where a bunch of dweebs riding horses, armed with bows and arrows were trying to rob a modern train running 80mph:)
-
Originally posted by ghi
I ussed to work for a Princess Cruises, and i remember was a news in "ship"s daily newspaper" ,the company ussed to pay close to 100.000$, every time we crossed the Panama, for 77 000 tons ship,
I think that's what our politicians have in mind
Soo, if you want to get a shortcutt ,have to pay for driving on Nortwest turnpike :)
If not our eskimos special forces is going to prepare an ambush for aircraftcarriers
Remember that comedy movie where a bunch of dweebs riding horses, armed with bows and arrows were trying to rob a modern train running 80mph:)
ROFLMAO :aok
-
Well well well...Boys :D
"Firstly this refers to how much value of energy goes into creating machinery. Even though your impressive CV is there, your statement needs an answer. So step yer hill and explain how a piece of machinerey can be sold at a less price than the energy AND effort that went into it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ummmmm......Angus...we`re talking C02 ouput to the atmosphere. The point is...if you start at the BEGINNING of the process , instead of in the middle or near the end, such as you seem to do, you will be producing more C02 than you can ever hope to take care of.Remember? Remember the global warming theory you`re so fond of? Could care less about dollars/cents as stated before. It doesn`t enter into global warming...........other than it will end up costing us in the long run for nothing....or be forgotten all together."
Ummmmm is not a very good answer.
I am yet again talking about the CO2 balance yes. And I do start in the BEGINNING, - actually inspired by yourself. Well, there is this logical statement that pulled you of the saddle, - now I'll even word it nicely and much more precizely:
Mass produced machinery CANNOT cost less than the energy and effort put into it.
There is only one exception, - someone is loosing money on the way. And it has a truth to it - Earth itself. How? Well, total plunder. How much? Well, in the sequence of building one John Deere from the ore in the mine onwards, actually not much exceeding massive use of fossile created energy. And how much is that worth and where is that value? Oh, - stuck in the price I'm afraid.
So, it's a calculable value, not accurate, but rough.
And yet there is quite some buffer available. But bear in mind that I am only referring to the CO2-in vs CO2-out regarding agriculture on it's own balance.
BTW thank you for inspiring me to do the speculation on the princip. Never knew exactly how it was done. But the 10% estimate was done by various institutions in Europe as far as some 15-20 years ago.
Bear in mind Jackal that if you want to complicate things by dumping out a smoke grenade, you will have to avoid getting lost in the fog yourself.
And then, for this:
" Remember the global warming theory you`re so fond of?"
I have little doubt that the globe is warming and I am trying to get a little picture about why. I am not YET in the camp of those who belive it's all man-made-CO2 emission to blame, but as I look into the logics of those in the other camps, I might end up there. Ok here's my little definition of the camps ;)
A. No global warming happening
B. Maybe some warming, but nothing out of the ordinary, all been seen before.
C. There is warming and we should look carefully into this to see if it has something to do with us, be it CO2, deforestation, etc.
D. It's heating at a very quick rate, and it's most or all our fault, and we must react NOW or we're toast.
Some here may rank as "A", I would put you in B with G.Bush, I'm at C, and Beetle as well as Stephen Hawkinge are at D.
Ponder on it, and here's a little more on the Curriculum as well as some corrections on the remarks :D
Broken ribs don't need sewing up.
35 cows here is average. With bucket machines it's a lot.
My oldest computes is still sticking together and working. (1992 model 486)
Salted horsemeat is a powersource indeed, - for your intests.
My place is not melting. I have also some 120 feet to SL...hehe.
I did indeed have to plod the snow to school.
I never lived in a perfect scenario.
I hate paperwork.
Today I've been cultivating a field and driving turf.
Oh, forgot it I do have an Agricultural degree.
And an extra add-on in organic farming.
There is definately something missing......:D
-
Originally posted by Angus
I am yet again talking about the CO2 balance yes.
Nope. :)
But bear in mind that I am only referring to the CO2-in vs CO2-out regarding agriculture on it's own balance.
Which is where you are geting into left field. You can`t just view it as Ag C02 in/C02 out. The machinery has to be built. Before that iron, plastics, rubber, glass, fuel ...on and on and on has to be produced. All of which emits mass amounts of C02. Burining down the barn to kill the rats. Machinery doesn`t magical appear on site.
Bear in mind Jackal that if you want to complicate things by dumping out a smoke grenade, you will have to avoid getting lost in the fog yourself.
The smoke grenade is what you are avoiding by not starting at the beginning of a process. It`s called C02. It comes from all of the refining and factories that are involved in the process of building and running the machinery. You can`t start in the middle. Stuff doesn`t magicaly appear at point C,D,E,F...pollution free .
I have little doubt that the globe is warming and I am trying to get a little picture about why.
Look deep into the salted horse meat at full moon,at the stroke of midnight, for the answer. :rofl
but as I look into the logics of those in the other camps, I might end up there.
I heard Beet was going camping. Maybe you can hook up with him.
There is definately something missing.
Yes there is. It`s called common sense. You don`t get it with magic wands or out of books. :)
35 cows here is average.
35 cows here is called a hobby ...or possibly an FFA project. :)
-
A trolling saturday or are you drunk Jackal???
Or is a 10.000 $ piece of machinery perhaps worth 1.000.000 gallons of oil?
My feeling is that you have no clue about the logic. Hence the desperate grabbing for paper whatever, and dumping remarks with no foot in them whatsoever.
huh huh huh and maybe time to use your moonlight (Here we now have sun at midnight) to read a book about photosyntesis and how many kg's of C can be tied up pro sq. meter of soil .... in an AVERAGE scenario :D
-
plz let the end come soon
-
Why can't we talk about something that we can all agree on, like that Martha Stewert Lap Dance from another thread???
Here's some more topics that will spark some consensus among us:
Capital Punishment
Abortion
Legalized Drugs
Gun Control
Existence of God
JB28's avatar...(oh wait, nevermind)
-
LOL! Jackal said "Look deep into the salted horse meat at full moon,at the stroke of midnight, for the answer."
And Angus replied (Here we now have sun at midnight)
I was waiting for that! But you surely wouldn't expect our Texan friend to know about such things. :D
-
It ain't like that in Texas boy :D
-
Originally posted by Angus
A trolling saturday or are you drunk Jackal???
If you are trolling Angus , you are doing a poor job. More like Comedy Central. :)
Or is a 10.000 $ piece of machinery perhaps worth 1.000.000 gallons of oil?
When you are in the mystical, magical forest building business ,such as yourself, dollars and cents shouldn`t be an issue. Of course the fact that you will be spewing untold, unprecedented amounts of C02 into the atmosphere to the point of having to go on the "rent another planet" program might need to be considered, but hey, what the heck. Since the whole scenrio is a fairy tale and will never see the light of day.......I guess you can wave the magic wand in any direction you wish. At some point though, you are going to have to click your ruby reds together three times and wake up. Just never, never, never say Beetlejuice three times in a row. :)
My feeling is that you have no clue about the logic.
Is that a "gut feeling" Angus. Practice the maybes, IFs, could be/could not be and possibily/possibly nots a little longer and you will be a scinetist in no time.
huh huh huh and maybe time to use your moonlight (Here we now have sun at midnight) to read a book about photosyntesis and how many kg's of C can be tied up pro sq. meter of soil .... in an AVERAGE scenario :D
With the same magic wand that you are getting the machinery to show up on site/on location without any prior manufactoring or refining, the moonlight should not be a problem for you Angus. :)
Yes, your average, STERILE scenario which shows........well absolutely nothing concerning your mystical, magical forest fairy tale. Mainly due to the fact that it starts in the middle or towards the end of the process instead of at the beginning.
Here`s one that you can take to the bank and requires no magic wand. It When it comes to your magical forests.......Ain`t Gonna Happen. :)
With a herd of 35 cows I don`t beleive we even have to worry about the methane output (cow farts) from your operation.
The foreman from the King Ranch will be in touch shortly for some pointers.
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Angus
It ain't like that in Texas boy :D
LOL ! The earth is flat, which is why it's pitch black and with a full moon everywhere on the earth at midnight - and not just Texas!
-
Always had a gut feeling that you were a member of the flat earth society.
Anyway, since you choked on the manufacture size of the equation, maybe you have some numbers now? Or logic?
-
Originally posted by Angus
Always had a gut feeling that you were a member of the flat earth society.
Gut feeling! I dub thee scientist. :)
Anyway, since you choked on the manufacture size of the equation, maybe you have some numbers now? Or logic?
Choked? Naw..don`t think so. It is you that haved choked. Your equation is faulty due to it starting in the middle or close to the end of the process. No magic wands, no on site/on location equipment. Also the question is not dollars and cents.
At any rate, you are burning the barn down to get rid of the rats, in your mystical cure for the theory of global warming.
It or nothing like it is going to take place now or in the future.
But hey......................
The horse is beat to death. You may now salt it down and place it on your porch. :)
At least you had a theory of something that could possibly be done, as far fetched and sci-fiish as it is. Qatar boy could come up with nothing besides "The Sky Is Falling!" and "I was waiting for that". Such an exciting life.
Now....realsiticaly speaking........really......d o you actualy see anything being done, now or in the near future, that could have the slightest positive effect to this theoretical problem? What do you propose.......realisticaly? I`m bearing in mind that you said you were still undecided about man`s actual input.
Anymore ideas?
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Anymore ideas?
Well, I guess we'll just have to solve it by building another orphanage!
:rofl
-
angus... we know it is light there most of the day but.... have you banished midnight? No dark no hours? Or is it just that your sundial gets all screwed up?
lazs
-
Lazs - above the Arctic Circle (N66½°) at this time of year, it's permanent daylight with the sun completely above the horizon. Most of Iceland is actually below the Arctic Circle, but as Angus says, there's midnight sun at this time of year, though I believe at least part of the sun would be below the horizon when at its lowest point. I'm hoping Angus will fill us in.
But I'm surprised that you and jackall didn't know this - you seem to know everything else - or so you would have us believe... :p
-
64 deg N where I am :D
-
Fill in.
We have some days where the sun does not go down. In the North, even more.
Right now, my clock states 23:46.
I can easily sit outside and read a book (which is a sport some should pick up). And I can do it without any light....and it's cloudy!!!!
-
in the US twilight ends, depecding on if u r a cililian, navy personnel, or astronomer, when the sun get 6, 12 or 18 degrees below the horizon. this time of year at 64N midnight should be like about 10 to 15 minutes after sunset in the US. I was in nothern Sweden one summer & it is quite a nice effect.
-
Well LOL Angus! Funny how this thread has gone quiet, once we rooted out a couple of guys whose knowledge of the earth did not extend to the fact that the sun stays up 24x7 where you live. One wonders if their pronouncements on global warming can be trusted, if they think the earth is flat.
-
We`re giving you some time to learn how to read Beet.
-
so.... if the sun stays up 24 hours then there is no midnight? Odd... At my brothers place in canada they didn't have night one time I was there and they still called the hour after 11:00 pm "midnight". Don't they even call some of those places "land of the midnight sun"?
angus.... I manage to read without the sun.... I use a glowing filiment in a globe. Perhaps you could read more often if you could somehow get a dung and tape fired version?
lazs
-
What's next Lazs? Gonna try to debate me about how the sun HERE goes at midnight on the 21's of June?
Here's a teaser for you. Where do you think it goes on the 21st of DEC :D
Anyway seems that camp A and B don't pack too much IQ and keep stuck with ,,what's brown and sounds like a bell :D
Then, if you can use the sunlight to read, maybe you can save some fossil CO2 from escaping into the atmosphere :D
-
Ok... your method of time keeping must make sense to you but... I still don't get it.
Why even have a clock? just say that it is "sunny".
is it just personal preference or is the word "midnight" banned in your country?
lazs
-
Since this has so much to do with global warming, maybe I can clear this little episode up for the ironicaly impaired such as Beet. ( I think Angus got it the first time around.)
Comments.
Machinery doesn`t magicaly appear on site.
(spelling error corrected. Just so there won`t be any confusion.
Stuff doesn`t magicaly appear at point C,D,E,F
You don`t get it with magic wands or out of books.
and finaly......
Look deep into the salted horse meat at full moon,at the stroke of midnight, for the answer.
Got a grip on it now Beet?
Maybe the term "Like trying to skin a mule with garden hoe" will help.
How about..."When donkies fly". That clear it up?
Hows about " It ain`t gonna happen". Sound familiar? That clear the clouds?
I keep forgetting the and tags for the challenged. :)
The hilarious thing is the tirade our Rebel Without A Clue went off into with......well.....without a clue. :) <--
Such as...........
LOL! Jackal said "Look deep into the salted horse meat at full moon,at the stroke of midnight, for the answer."And Angus replied (Here we now have sun at midnight)
I was waiting for that! But you surely wouldn't expect our Texan friend to know about such things.
Then follows it up with..............
LOL ! The earth is flat, which is why it's pitch black and with a full moon everywhere on the earth at midnight - and not just Texas!
And the the topper...............
I'm hoping Angus will fill us in.
Which roughly translates into " Help me out here. I don`t have a clue."<--
Thanks for participating in the " DUuuH! I Don`t Get It game."
You may now return to your localy scheduled fairy tale network. <--
-
:)<----
Ah, ah,
We come from the land of the ice and snow,
From the midnight sun where the hot springs blow.
The hammer of the gods will drive our ships to new lands,
To fight the horde, singing and crying: Valhalla, I am coming!
On we sweep with threshing oar, Our only goal will be the western shore.
Ah, ah,
We come from the land of the ice and snow,
From the midnight sun where the hot springs blow.
How soft your fields so green, can whisper tales of gore,
Of how we calmed the tides of war. We are your overlords.
On we sweep with threshing oar, Our only goal will be the western shore.
So now you'd better stop and rebuild all your ruins,
For peace and trust can win the day despite of all your losing.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
spelling error corrected. Just so there won`t be any confusion.
Funny - I saw numerous spelling errors in your post, like "magicaly" and "finaly" and "donkies" and "localy". I'll allow the American spellings. But... didn't you say something about when I can learn to read? Will probably happen before you learn to spell. Which roughly translates into " Help me outh here. I don`t have a clue."<--
Wrong. You see, I already knew that at the North Pole, there is permanent sunlight for 6 months (the northern hemisphere summer) (full sun, above the horizon) And... above the Arctic Circle in other areas there's permanent sunlight in that same 6 month period, but with at least part of the sun dipping to horizon level at "dusk". Most of Iceland is below the Arctic Circle, and I don't know precisely where Angus lives, so I asked him to fill in. Better than rocking back and forth on the stoop, pretending to know everything. Got a grip on it now Jack?
Lazs - interestingly, the Oxford Paperback Dictionary defines the word "night" as the time between sunset and sunrise. Therefore, if the sun does not set, there is no night at all. "Midnight" is a term used in lieu of 12am, by which I mean one minute before 12.01am. But in those areas where the sun does not set at all at certain times of the year, it's a bit of a misnomer. "Land of the Midnight Sun" is likely a name used by visiting tourists, more than the locals.
-
ROFLMAO <-----
Beet..........you are here........
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/22_1150731867_lost.jpg)
If time permits I will purchase a Big Chief tablet and some crayons and draw you a picture. :) <----
But, while you are waiting...........
NOTICE: The annual AH secretarial compettiton will be held on Friday.
Be sure to wear your best dress. <---
-
Well Jack, I guess I didn't spell it out to you clearly enough. I've amended my post, which should have read that there is permanent sunlight in the Arctic Circle during the 6 months of Northern hemisphere "summer" - you know, the period we're in now which we've been talking about for the last few posts, especially relevant because as Angus pointed out, Wednesday is the Northern hemisphere's summer solstice. That may be a new word for you, so just think June 21. :p
-
LMAO <--
Still haven`t snapped to it yet, have ya?
Your crayon drawing is complete.
You were....
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/22_1150732767_pawned.jpg)
...get over it. :) <---
-
LOL Jack - hardly. Again, I thought it was obvious I was talking about the northern hemisphere summer, as indeed it was to Angus and Lazs. Sorry it wasn't obvious to you.
Of course, in your Flat Earth society, the earth doesn't have a northern and southern hemisphere - hence the confusion!
:rofl
-
6 months of sunlight and 6 of dark. How does that affect the normal sleep patterns of humans? It seems to me that our built-in need for daily sleep is a result of our experiencing a period of night every 24 hours. Would people eventually adapt to different sleep patterns if exposed to differnt day/night patters for a long enough period of time? I'm talking many thousands of years.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
LOL Jack - hardly. Again, I thought it was obvious I was talking about the northern hemisphere summer, as indeed it was to Angus and Lazs. Sorry it wasn't obvious to you.
Of course, in your Flat Earth society, the earth doesn't have a northern and southern hemisphere - hence the confusion!
:rofl
Bwaaaaahaaaaaaa! <---
If even crayon drawings don`t do it, I guess you can be the odd man out.
You were had hoss......by yourself. :rofl <----
-
See Rule #4, #5
-
Originally posted by beet1e
See Rule #4, #5
Yeah, I saw that. I've crossed the pacific 10 times and worked rotating shifts so I'm familiar with jet lag and unusual sleep patterns. Bizarre to imagine we might develop a sleep pattern based on a 6/6 month cycle though.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
See Rule #4, #5
See Rule #7
-
See Rule #4, #5
-
(http://www.bugbitten.com/photogallery/data/e4da3b7fbbce2345d7772b0674a318d5/tb_73_p15552.jpg)
Beet, I don't know where you get the energy... bogs a bit down here, mind...