Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: midnight Target on July 22, 2002, 03:38:40 PM
-
Dontcha just hate that?
The Republiclown EPA has just published a study saying Global Warming is a fact. Duh!http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/publications/car/index.html
-
Wasn't man the cause of the last ice age? He had to have been. We all know a natural phenomenon like that just can't happen on it's own.
-
Big difference Hblair.
-
al who?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Big difference Hblair.
Oh, I thought they were the same thing. What's the big difference? :)
-
Global warming attributed to the production of "greenhouse gases" would lead to an unstoppable spiraling UP of the Earths temperature. without too much mumbo jumbo the gases act like a greenhouse glass wall. Letting heat in, but not allowing it to escape. As the temperature rises more gases are formed and the heat just keeps on rising. See the environment of Venus for a worst case scenario.
The Earth will never of course get that bad, but it doesn't need to warm up too much to cause catasrophy for us all.
-
al who?
You know. The guy that invented the Internet. And desperation for power.
-
Not this again.
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Rude
Not this again.
:rolleyes:
? what do you mean Rude?
-
MT, do you really believe all that doom about global warming you are saying? Thats the only malarchy I amk reading
no offence.
-
-ammo-
Did you bother to read the EPA report (dated May 2002) or do you get your science info from Rush?
-
a recent study by the Tabasco Institut proves the end of the Ice Age was caused by Man holding huge Wooly Mammoth BBQ's, the fires caused a rise in greenhouse gasses that melted the ice caps
-
The point is......
The EPA is admitting for the first time that global warming due to greenhouse gas emmisions is real. They did this just last month. It has taken our government a long time to see what the rest of the world has been seeing for many years. There is no doubt about the greenhouse effect!
Actually Bush deserves a pat on the back here. As long as his administration backs up what his EPA has shown to be true.
-
Actually, global warming has been going on, with minor interruptions, for the last 14,000 years, beginning whent he last ice age ended.
In the last century the world's overall temperature rose by a whopping one degree.
I have seen some studies that suggest that moderate global warming would actually be beneficial to mankind. A lengthened growing season would increase food supplies for the earth's burgeoning human and animal populations. Rising ocean levels would cause our major port cities the expense of rebuilding their dock areas. Otherwise, who else is it going to hurt, the well-to-do who own expensive beach-front properties?
The environmental and atmospheric sciences are barely out of their infancy. While there is little doubt that modern industrialization is a contributing factor of global warming, some scientists point out that it is mainly a natural phenomenon.
A cursory examination of the history of the earth's ancient environment shows that the lengthy ice age periods are separated by relatively short 14 to 20 thousand year periods of warmth. If you think global warming poses a threat to mankind, just imagine what the onset of another ice age would do. Some of the largest food producing areas of the northern hemisphere would be covered by continental glaciers more than two miles thick. Since we are already more than 14,000 years into this latest "warm period" we should, perhaps, consider ourselves lucky to have a little global warming to stave off the start of the next ice age.
I don't question the sincerity of our environmental scientists. I simply believe that they have more than one agenda. Having an agenda could cause them to wear blinders when analyzing their data.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Stick your head in the sand all you want, but Global warming IS happening.
These guys...
http://www.ipcc.ch/
Put out the report mentioned here...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A30706-2001Jan22¬Found=true
and here...
http://cbc.ca/search/servlet/Search?sp-s=1&sp-c=5&sp-a=000611d2-sp00000019&sp-date-range=-1&sp-p=all&sp-w=alike&sp-w-control=0&sp-k=Canada&sp-k=Local&sp-k=World&sp-k=SciTech&sp-k=SpecialReports&sp-q=glaciers
And some new info on American and Canadian glaciers thinning can be found here...
http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?category=Sci-Tech&story=/news/2002/07/19/glaciers020719
What does NASA have to say about global warning?
It can be found here...
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
-
Not that I dislike rush, I dont. But I dont need to listen to him to casue my disbelief in that theory. Sorry, that is just a bunch crap that you are spewing.
-
It's amusing how many dolts actually believe that man is the main reason for global warming. But hey, we humans need to feel guilty about almost everything we do, so I understand the psychology behind this issue as well.
-
Man was the cause of the last ice age...hehehehehehehe, and the same person that told you that is the same one telling you about global warming.........hehehehehe, I got a bridge to sell ya too, cheap........hehehehehehe
Laguerre
-
-ammo-, koala, and LAGUERRE, I've posted some links to webpages where I get some of my information on Global Warming. Could you please let me know some sources you use?
-
Yeah, it's pretty clear who the dolts are here.
Thanks for the additional links Thrawn.
-
I'm sure the people living in Siberia wouldn't mind some global warming.
J_A_B
-
I have this vision of clothed primates sat at computer screens discussing science and society in general, and global warming specifically. And the one thing they are all saying is:
"Science? Bollocks more like. They're just making it up. What has it ever done for us?"
And the funniest thing is there is not even a hint of irony in what they say. :D
-
My G-d,
the level of ignorance on this board is astounding. Wtf do they do in american schools? Because they sure as he** cant be teaching the kids anyting.
I have seen some studies that suggest that moderate global warming would actually be beneficial to mankind. A lengthened growing season would increase food supplies for the earth's burgeoning human and animal populations. Rising ocean levels would cause our major port cities the expense of rebuilding their dock areas. Otherwise, who else is it going to hurt, the well-to-do who own expensive beach-front properties?
I must admit, it is not often one gets to witness true stupidity, but here it is. Now, dont take it too personal, Im sure that you think you are right on some level here...just another victim of a poor education I suppose.
So...exactly what would "moderate global warming" be? And how do you get it to stop when it has reached "moderate" levels?
Rising ocean levels "would cause our major port cities the expense of rebuilding their dock areas. Otherwise, who else is it going to hurt, the well-to-do who own expensive beach-front properties? "? Brilliant.
And while the US is forced to rebuild some dock areas, lets see who else might "get hurt" shall we? Lets start with Bangladesh, that country will be pretty much submerged, China's Pearl River Delta will be depopulated (since it will now be below ocean level), kiss Holland goodbye, and say so long to the most populated parts of Egypt..but hey..who cares..right? (aside from the tens of millions of people who are displaced by water) And how much would the oceans have to rise to cause all that havoc? 15-30 inches. How much will the oceans rise if 10% of the polar ice caps melt? 3 feet.
On to the next idiot.
It's amusing how many dolts actually believe that man is the main reason for global warming. But hey, we humans need to feel guilty about almost everything we do, so I understand the psychology behind this issue as well.
Do you understand the basic physics behind global warming? In short, certain gasses (lets call them greenhouse gasses), such as CO2 are transparent to sunlight coming through the atmosphere, but they absorb heat radiation from the earths surface and radiate some of that heat back down, causing a heating of the surface.
Also, as the atmosphere becomes warmer (thanks to mr CO2 remember) it can hold more water vapor. Water vapor is another greenhouse gass (transparent to sunlight, absorbing heat radiation from the surface, radiating some of that heat back down). And so we are caught in a bad circle. More heat leads to more water vapor, more water vapor leads to more heat. You dont just turn that off.
Another factor is ice and snow. Ice and snow is a very good reflectant (its white, you know). Much of the sunlight that hits ice or snow is reflected back into space. When the earth's surface becomes warmer, areas of ice and snow are replaced by darker areas of ocean or land, which does not reflect sunlight as good as ice and snow. This means more heat is absorbed instead of reflected, leading to increased temperatures.
NOW
Carbon dioxide levels have increased by 31 percent over the past 250 years, reaching a concentration unseen on the planet in 420,000 years and perhaps as far back as 20 million years. But why blame man for that? (hint: the burning of oil, gasoline and coal, produces carbon dioxide)
I'm sure the people living in Siberia wouldn't mind some global warming.
Gee..how witty.
Lets see shall we?
More desert, more steppe, more drought,
less tundra, less forests, less rain, less animals
more swamps, more insects, more CO2 emissions...yup..sounds like exactly what anyone would want.
For boreal forests, which are mainly concentrated in the Russian Federation, climate models suggest large shifts in distribution (area reductions of up to 50%) and productivity. All components of boreal forest ecosystems would be affected, including water resources, soil systems, and wildlife, and the combined effect could be even stronger as a result of interacting factors.
Grasslands and shrublands in boreal regions would expand significantly, whereas the tundra zone would decrease by up to 50%, according to model projections. Climatic warming also would increase the release of methane from deep peat deposits, particularly from tundra soils, because they would become wetter. It is expected that the release of CO2 would increase, though not by more than 25% of its present level.
The most widely distributed coniferous forests in Siberia are the larch forests: West of the Yenissei River, Larix russica predominates; to the east, Larix gmelini prevails. The latter grows in the north of eastern Siberia, where the annual temperature range reaches about 100°C (-64°C to +38°C), as shown by mean long-term meteorological data from 1937 to the present from Yakutsk weather station. Larix gmelini has a specialized root system: Its apex central root dies off at the permafrost border, and a root system develops in the upper soil layers. The larch is vulnerable to damage by fires and insects, which occur more frequently in warmer climates. Increased steppe area also may be expected in the southern part of eastern Siberia
The biomass densities of larch (Larix sibirica), scotch pine (Pinus silvestris), Siberian pine (Pinus sibirica), and birch (Betula platyphylla) are projected to decrease by 27.7, 4.3, 28.5, and 2.6 t/ha, respectively. Such decreases seem to be caused by warming air temperature and reduced rainfall during the summer season. Gobi and steppe areas in Mongolia would therefore expand. Major alterations in vegetation could be expected, especially in the mountains of the northern boreal subzone and the subarctic forest-tundra ecotone in northeast Siberia.
Climate changes would affect the biodiversity in boreal forests of Temperate Asia through a myriad of processes and effects: local mortality of boreal species and replacement by northern hardwoods or prairies, depending on locale and soil type; migration of boreal species northward and coastward, also depending on locale and soil type; increased probability of fire; increased or decreased soil nutrient availability, depending on permafrost, soil water-holding capability, and locale; increased emissions of greenhouse gases—particularly methane—from wetlands; and increased probability of outbreaks of pests, particularly insects, to drought-stressed trees.
-
Well, GEE, Hortlund, before you start calling people idiots because they hold opinions opposed to your own, perhaps you had better read the IPCC report found at http://www.ipcc.ch/ which Thrawn listed in his post.
This report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a technical summary drawn up for the use of policy makers which was taken from the IPCC's Third Assessment Report entitled Climate Change 2001.
The report begins with a short review of the First and Second Assessment Reports which were issued in 1990 and 1996 respectively.
The First Assessment Report contained the following statement:
The past century had...seen a surface warming of nearly 0.5 degrees Celsius, which was broadly consistent with that predicted by climate models for the greenhouse gas increases, but was also comparable to what was then known about natural variation.
The First Assessment Report ended with the conclusion that further study was needed because there was insufficient data to reach any real conclusion.
The Second Assessment Report was entitled Assessing the New State of Understanding. It contained the following statements;
The report underscored that greenhouse gas abundances continued to increase in the atmosphere and that very substantial cuts in emissions would be required for stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Further, the general increase in global temperature continued, with recent years being the warmest since at least 1860. The ability of climate models to simulate observed events and trends had improved, particularly with the inclusion of sulphate aerosols and stratospheric ozone as radiative forcing agents in the climate models. Utilising this simulative capability to compare to the observed patterns of regional temeprature changes, the report concluded that the ability to quantify the human influence on global climate was limited... Nevertheless, the report also concluded that the balance of evidence suggest a discernible human influence on global climate.
Does anybody else find the last two statements in that summary to be contradictory? If the ability to quantify the human influence is limited how can you reach the conclusion that there is a discernible human influence on global climate?
On to the Third Assessment Report;
Section B begins by asking the question "Is the climate changing?" The answer is unequivocally "Yes." "The global average surface temperature has increased by 0.6 plus or minus 0.2 degrees Celsius since the late 19th century." (Or about one degree Fahrenheit.)
Temperature increases in the ocean are confined mainly to the upper 300 meters and amount to an increase of 0.04 degrees Celsius per decade.
Hmmm! I can certainly see where some would be alarmed by such drastic changes in global temperature. But please read further.
Surface, balloon and satellite temperature measurements show that the troposphere and Earth's surface have warmed and that the stratosphere has cooled...Since 1979 the balloon and satellite records show significantly less lower-troposphere warming than observed at the surface.
There has been a major retreat of alpine and continental glaciers in response to 20th century warming. In a few maritime regions, increases in precipitation due to regional atmospheric circulation changes have overshadowed increases in temperature in the past two decades, and glaciers have readvanced.
This is nothing new. Alpine and continental glaciers have been retreating world-wide more or less steadily since the last ice age. By the way, the climate models do not always react in the way that climatologists predict. They have shown, for instance, that if the current warming trend continues changes in the North Atlantic Current would cause corresponding changes in the climate of Greenland, with the result that its' large continental glacier would grow. Wierd stuff.
To continue with the Third Assessment Report;
Northern Hemisphere sea-ice amounts are decreasing, but no significant trends in Antarctic sea-ice extent are apparent.
Over the 20th Century there were relatively small increases in global land areas experiencing severe drought or severe wetness.
There has been a 2 to 4 percent increase in the frequency of heavy precipitation events. There is no comparable evidence to indicate that the characteristics of tropical and extra-tropical storms have changed.
There is much more contained in the report. Graphs that illustrate the dramatic rise of global temperatures from a low of approximately 0.4 degrees Celsius below normal to the current high of approximately 0.4 degrees above normal. Study reports that show that the rise in level of the world's oceans has increased alarmingly...to about 0.04 mm per year.
How long will it take to flood Bangladesh at that rate Hortlund?
Now, please understand. I do not discount the dangers involved in global warming. The dangers are certainly real. The statements in the report about the growing effects of man-made pollutants on global warming are compelling. Some are cleansed out of the atmosphere in as little as 4 years while others linger for as long as 50,000 years. Definitely scarey stuff.
What I do question is some of the conclusions reached in light of some of the contradictory evidence presented in these same reports. Some of the warnings sound shrill.
Man-made pollutants are undoubtedly playing a part in global warming. These reports suggest that climatologists do not, yet, know exactly how significant that part is.
Until they do, I wish everyone concerned would stop acting as if they have all the answers. Nature and climate are still highly unpredictable.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Meanwhile, snow storm hits South Africa...IN JULY:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=524&u=/ap/20020722/ap_wo_en_po/south_africa_snow_1&printer=1
-
In the fall of 2000 Arkansas experienced the hottest August on record, with daytime temperatures frequently rising as high as 111 degrees fahrenheit.
Four months later, Arkansas experienced the coldest December on record, with daytime temperatures seldom rising above freezing and frequent snow and ice storms.
Whazzup widdat?
Regards, Shuckins
-
In the late 60's early 70's Time magazine reported on the coming ica age that was do to start kicking in with huge temperature changes (for the colder) by the year 2000.
I feel proud to have spray painted and hot rodded the world a little farther away from the ice age. (and to have stopped reading Time)
That quack astronomer (ded PBS guy) sagan or whatever, predicted an worldwide nucleur winter IF sadam fired up the oil fields in kuait as he threatened... He did and the world didn't.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
NOW
Carbon dioxide levels have increased by 31 percent over the past 250 years, reaching a concentration unseen on the planet in 420,000 years and perhaps as far back as 20 million years.
What kind of instrument did we use to measure carbon dioxide 250 years ago? Was it as accurate as what we use today?
Also, how do we know (know as in know, not guess) what levels of carbon dioxide were on earth 420,000 years ago? Do we get that info out of some rocks combined with a really smart professors theory? (serious question)
-
Originally posted by hblair
What kind of instrument did we use to measure carbon dioxide 250 years ago? Was it as accurate as what we use today?
Also, how do we know (know as in know, not guess) what levels of carbon dioxide were on earth 420,000 years ago? Do we get that info out of some rocks combined with a really smart professors theory? (serious question)
for the first question : ice and yes it's accurate :)
the the 2nd ... I don't now :(
-
How do we know the age of the ice?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
My G-d,
the level of ignorance on this board is astounding. Wtf do they do in american schools? Because they sure as he** cant be teaching the kids anyting.
I only hope one day we can be as enlightened as the Swedes. You're just pissed because you'll have to find something other than hockey, skiing, and seasonal depression disorders to occupy your time.
In closing, warmer air turns blondes to brunettes. Now there's[/I] something to get your fur-lined panties in a knot ...
-
The ENVISAT, Europe's largest research satellite so far, was launched to gather irrefutable proof of this phenomenon, so I'm waiting for the results of what it brings to scientists.
Daniel
-
Originally posted by Morgoth
I only hope one day we can be as enlightened as the Swedes. You're just pissed because you'll have to find something other than hockey, skiing, and seasonal depression disorders to occupy your time.
In closing, warmer air turns blondes to brunettes. Now there's[/I] something to get your fur-lined panties in a knot ...
Welcome to the O'club spof!!!! :D Now don't do anything crazy like read my posts! I don't wanna get kicked outa the squad hehehehehe.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
That quack astronomer (ded PBS guy) sagan or whatever, predicted an worldwide nucleur winter IF sadam fired up the oil fields in kuait as he threatened... He did and the world didn't.
lazs
Not only that but wasn't it supposed to take something like 50 years to put out all the fires? Good ole Texas boy Red Adair's (sp?) company finished the job a tad bit quicker than that ;)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Meanwhile, snow storm hits South Africa...IN JULY:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=524&u=/ap/20020722/ap_wo_en_po/south_africa_snow_1&printer=1
Umm... they're on the southern hemisphere, and have winter when the northern one has summer. Because of, like, the earth's rotational axis beeing angled against it's orbits plane. :D
Couldn't resist...
-
Life is the leading cause of death. Now go get one.
-
To the original post-
Are you suggesting Al Gore discovered global warming?
Hey, Dan Quayle was right about family values, too...
-
I can prove the end is near.... I agree with most of what Hortlund wrote.
Shuckins, good points too sir. Did you both note that you agreed on the human effect on global warming, that is that THERE IS a human effect. The only differentiation is the degree.
OTOH Shuckins you wrote: Man-made pollutants are undoubtedly playing a part in global warming. These reports suggest that climatologists do not, yet, know exactly how significant that part is.
soon after writing this: the ability to quantify the human influence on global climate was limited... Nevertheless, the report also concluded that the balance of evidence suggest a discernible human influence on global climate.
Does anybody else find the last two statements in that summary to be contradictory?
First you say it is contradictory, then you say it is undoubtably true. Go figure.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
To the original post-
Are you suggesting Al Gore discovered global warming?
Hey, Dan Quayle was right about family values, too...
Nah, just made ya look ;)
-
Originally posted by Udie
Welcome to the O'club spof!!!! :D Now don't do anything crazy like read my posts! I don't wanna get kicked outa the squad hehehehehe.
This isn't the first time I've posted just the first time Hort has been annoying enough to warrant a response. Liked your smoky-smoky post :D
Maybe old stoners are the ones warming up the planet? Cya up on Wed night!
-
...yes, but you lost 30 I.Q. points for using the "Republiclown" euphemism... ;)
-
Originally posted by Kieran
...yes, but you lost 30 I.Q. points for using the "Republiclown" euphemism... ;)
Dam! And I have so few to spare!!!
-
how do you measure a change of .04 mm per year in sea level ???
-
Originally posted by hblair
How do we know the age of the ice?
The half period of carbon 14 is well now so by measuring the residual radiocativity we know the age ... CQFD (ce qu'il fallait démontrer ;))
-
Originally posted by john9001
how do you measure a change of .04 mm per year in sea level ???
you measure the average height of the waves :D
-
Receding glaciers also leave "rings" similar to the rings on a tree. These indicate periods of higher or lower activity and can help in dating the ice.
Radio Isotopes work too (http://www.lanl.gov/worldview/news/releases/archive/00-079.shtml)
-
Oops... actually I slipped some I.Q. points... "Republiclown" is more of a sobriquet than a euphemism...
...dang, mistakes like that really do bug me... :D
-
Everyone interesting reading
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/paleo/pliocene/
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/about/spotlight/
Being a geologist global climates have changed several times in earths history. Do I believe we (man) have a role in the weather...yes i do. Hell just look at LA and NY from a distance tons of smog, blacktop (key to warming in large sities BTW), acid rain etc. Regulations need to be put into place to stop pollution no doubt.
Do i think global warming is as much as they say...no i dont. Not many of the temps are taken in remote regions say easter island, where there is warming but not the 0.5 C they are saying. Prolly closer to 0.2C maybe 0.3C IMO.
Just my opinion.
-
Midnight Target,
Aww! Dang! Did I make a Boo-Boo? LOL!
I see that I'm gonna have to take off the gloves! :D
Actually, if you read my first post in this thread, you will see that I had already agreed that humanity was having an impact on global climate.
I attempted to make two main points in my second thread. One, climatologists had made great strides in gathering data on the global climate and creating climate models. Second, despite these strides climatology remains an inexact science. They simply do not have the capability of accurately quantifying how great the human impact is. The best that they can do is make educated projections. There are too many other variables involved in the equation for them to claim such a high level of expertise.
On another note: I found that I made another mistake (I'm nothing if not honest.) Sea level rise during the 20th century has actually been running between1.0 and 2.0 millimeters a year. Hortlund stated that it would only take 15 to 30 inches of ocean rise to flood Bangladesh. For purposes of calculation lets use a median figure of 50 centimeters. If I've done my math right it will take about 250 years for Bangladesh to be flooded.
Plenty of time to make some adjustments. It may happen no matter what steps we take to prevent global warming.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Good Grief I did not know that this was so serious! I sure hope that I am not around in 6000 years or so to see if I die by global warming or by nuclear winter. But for the time being I think I will run around like a head with the chicken cut off spouting hysteria (a lot more fun when you can back it up with a limited amount of scientific theory), I just haven't decided which side to be on. Maybe I will just take chicken little approach. Most likely I will just pull up a lawn chair and cheer the debate.
What both sides "DO NOT" know would fill encyclopedias.
another opinion
gee, opinions are a lot more fun than facts. ;)
-
well.... my point is that scientists get a lot more funding and attention if they can come up with a plausible doomsday scenario. Carl frigging sagan was just too stupid to see that he needs to have a theory that won't be tested. At least not till the book royalties and awards come in. Red Adair did not think that the kuwait fires were particularly difficult to put out.... especialy after he closed the main valve.
say... can anyone tell me... Milk, good to drink or bad to drink?
lazs
-
Uhhhh....is it still ok to go outside?
and Lazs....
Currently, milk is ok as long as you drink the white water(1 or 2% only). My four kids drink what I grew up on...full strength vitamin D:)
Oh yeah....egg's are cool now and so is bacon...enjoy yourself until some Swedish UN SWAT Team comes through your front door and confiscates your refrigerator.
-
Originally posted by Rude
Oh yeah....egg's are cool now and so is bacon...enjoy yourself until some Swedish UN SWAT Team comes through your front door and confiscates your refrigerator.
Curses...how did they get hold of our secret plans. And I thought I told the SWAT team to stay hidden and not use the black choppers.
-
Thank You Shuckins,
You are right of course. Global Climatology is in its infancy compared to other sciences. The point I was trying to make was that the EPA has actually agreed that there IS a human component to global warming. We can argue all day as to the extent, but I think we all agree that it exists.
Back in the 60's I remember lots of nay sayers who were up in arms about cutting air pollution in cars. We were going to ruin the economy! We were going to ruin the cars! It ain't so bad!
Global warming would be a bad thing, especially if it were to become self accelerating. Since we agree humans have some affect, can't we also agree that we should do what we can to minimize it?
-
we have the means to stop global warming now, we set off a number of nuclear bombs in uninhabited areas and the debris will go into the upper atmospher and block the suns rays ,there by cooling off the planet, but we must be carefull not to over do it and cause nuclear winter.
i am sure the scientists who can measure a change in the oceans level to accuracy of 1 MM can figure out the mega tonnage
-
Mr. Bill,
You made my point exactly. Considering that there is much that we do not know it is a bit presumptuous for either side in this debate to be making broad, sweeping statements.
Personally, I get more upset about the disappearance of the Southern Hardwood Forest in my home state of Arkansas. The state legislature has been in the hip pocket of the timber industry for more than 100 years. As a result there is almost no regulation of their timber cutting practices. After decades of cutting mature hardwood, spraying poison on the saplings, and then replacing the cut timber with pine, the southern half of the state has become a virtual pine plantation.
Mature stands of hardwood exist now almost exclusively on private lands. The timber companies are now paying local land-owners for the right to harvest these remnants.
People have to have timber for their homes and I do not wish to deprive timber employees of their jobs. They are, after all, only supplying a need. But pine is a second-rate building material at best, which means that the homes built with it will not last as long as those built with hardwood. The replacement of hardwood with pine creates a future market for the industry, which appears to have little concern for the environment.
It is a tragedy of the first magnitude. If you have never stood in one of those forests on a frosty morning late in October, with the sun on the edge of the horizon casting its pale light on the brilliant yellows and golds and reds of hickory and oak and beech, then you have not lived a full life.
Prosperity should not come at such a price.
Regards, Shuckins
-
houses should be built out of steel and concrete not firewood
-
The rain forest has been getting chopped down/burned/destroyed for a decade or more now...
is it any wonder CO2 levels are increasing?
But yeah, ignore that and lets push for electrical cars so that we can pollute more with power plants..... and continue to cut down the rain forest so that no matter how much we cut down on emissions, it don't matter one damn bit...
-SW
-
They simply do not have the capability of accurately quantifying how great the human impact is. The best that they can do is make educated projections. There are too many other variables involved in the equation for them to claim such a high level of expertise.
Even if it turns out it's 1% due to man, 99% due to nature, the dolts in their collective guilt will still run around demanding that we all totally change our lives because we're GUILTY, GUILTY, and if we don't go back to the stone age then we don't DESERVE to live on this planet!
well.... my point is that scientists get a lot more funding and attention if they can come up with a plausible doomsday scenario. Carl frigging sagan was just too stupid to see that he needs to have a theory that won't be tested. At least not till the book royalties and awards come in.
Bingo. No different than the JFK conspiracy buffs. Conspiracies and doomsday scenarios always equal money and control for the dolts.
Since we agree humans have some affect, can't we also agree that we should do what we can to minimize it?
Not if the effect is negligible, or if the gain is far outweighed by the pain. Nobody knows what that is, yet the dolts are ready to make us all suffer for it.
Thankfully we weren't stupid enough to sign on to the Kyoto treaty. But I'm sure it's only a matter of time before the hysteria pushes us in that direction again.
-
The end of my pipe just experienced "global warming" :D
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
It is a tragedy of the first magnitude. If you have never stood in one of those forests on a frosty morning late in October, with the sun on the edge of the horizon casting its pale light on the brilliant yellows and golds and reds of hickory and oak and beech, then you have not lived a full life.
Prosperity should not come at such a price.
Regards, Shuckins
I hear you man!
LOL udie
"dupe, dupe, dupe, looking out my backdoor"
Well not exactly but darn close.
-
So, we know there is a global warming happening.
We know that humans have had some affect on the warming.
And some of you just would rather stick your head in the sand and hope it goes away. Or even better, hope that the bad stuff happens after you are dead. sheesh :rolleyes:
-
No one will believe that global warming is a problem unless a major western city is destroyed because of it. And then it will be too late.
I'm not going to worry about about it to much for the next 4 or 5 years. If things go the way I expect them to, then I will begin to plan on taking care of me and mine. If things do take a turn for the worse though I fully expect the vast majority of people to ignore it until it's way to late. People's capacity for denile is truely out standing.
If things don't take a turn for the worse, then fantastic one less thing to worry about.
-
Global warming would be a bad thing, especially if it were to become self accelerating. Since we agree humans have some affect, can't we also agree that we should do what we can to minimize it?
I'm all fer that. Lets all spark up fatties and buy time shares at the new tropical resorts on Hudson Bay.
-
When I was a kid in the 70's I remember the gas crunch. My mom was a "green". She had this little green paper circle thing that she kept in the back window of the car. Every other day the green's could get gas, on the other day the red's got gas. I remember the commercials, especialy the ones they played during saturday morning cartoons, that said by the year 2000 we'd be out of oil! They used scare tactics on children for Christ's sake! and they were either not telling the truth or stupid. They were wrong for doing it and they were trying to influence the way the population behaved and even "indoctrinate" the kids while thier minds are still forming and more vunerable to this type of tactic.
I don't see this any diferent. Do humans affect the atmospere? the environment? Of course we do, we are part of the same system!!!! Duh! Do we affect it in a negative or positive way? Personaly I don't think we have been studying it long enough to be able to answer that question honestly. Surely to me the answer has enough doubt that I will not support or want to give any money to any government to try and fix a problem that I'm not sure exist. I believe that the government (most if not all of them too) will use this issue simply to get more cash from us. That's the track record of the US gov anyway. Mo money Mo money!
Look at the pictures of the industrial revolution. I have never seen anything like that in my life. The worst air polution I've seen is in houston durring rush hour traffic. Get non focil fuel burning vehicles and I think you solve that problem, if it is one. Those are coming and I bet we have them within the next 20 years, I hope so anyway.
oops I've got global warming goin on, gotta split :)
-
Originally posted by john9001
we have the means to stop global warming now, we set off a number of nuclear bombs in uninhabited areas and the debris will go into the upper atmospher and block the suns rays ,there by cooling off the planet, but we must be carefull not to over do it and cause nuclear winter.
i am sure the scientists who can measure a change in the oceans level to accuracy of 1 MM can figure out the mega tonnage
I agree, John, and if we use one or two too many Nukes and we start getting cooler then all we have to do is burn more fossil fuels to restart the global warming cycle. I'm sure we can control our climate with a combination of nuclear warheads and fossil fuels.
-
Is this like the theory that chugging ice cold Martinis will make you lose weight, because it lowers your body temperature, and you burn more calories warming up than the martini contained? :D
It is not a matter of it is ... it aint ... is so ... aint so. It is a matter of not having sufficient hard data to prove or disprove either theory. Statistics can be manipulated to both prove, and disprove, both sides of the same argument. A person who has not spent a equal amount of time researching the opposite side of an argument is not a person to be relied on, to put forth, (with any unbiased agenda) the side they support.
I'm outta here.
-
Originally posted by Elfenwolf
I agree, John, and if we use one or two too many Nukes and we start getting cooler then all we have to do is burn more fossil fuels to restart the global warming cycle. I'm sure we can control our climate with a combination of nuclear warheads and fossil fuels.
Elfenwolf, no one likes a smart ass. :D
By the by, anyone know how many chickens died in the last heat wave in the northern US, south-eastern Ontario?
Heheh...don't worry about it...everything is just fine. :D
-
well... we admit the whole thing is anything but an exact science... we admit there is a chance that humans can affect the planet. The problem comes when the domseday guys get ahold of your money and your freedom.
It's not too bad to make car manufactures llimit pollutants down to a reasonable level but it becomes silly to require miniscule further reductions that cost thousand of dollars per unit and do less good than banning weedeaters for a week.
Rude... thanks.. I will continue doing what I have been doing... patting myuself on the back the weeks when the experts agree with my lifestyle and calling em quacks the weeks that they don't.
I don't see no proof... I don't even see no proof that "by the time we get proof it will be too late!!"
lazs
-
By the by, anyone know how many chickens died in the last heat wave in the northern US, south-eastern Ontario?
Heheh...don't worry about it...everything is just fine.
Oooh, a heatwave! How bizarre!! We're GUILTY, GUILTY!
-
AlGore was Right!
Had to happen sooner or later, ya know what they say about 100 monkeys with 100 typewriters. :)
-
All you Ostriches are gonna have sunburned butts.... you'll see!!
:p :p :p
-
the forest fires start in approx. 28 minutes!!!!!!! :D
-
OK, so now all the tree huggers give up electricity, gas for your car, petroleum products, medicines that come from catalytic processes, no avaition of any kind, air conditioning, heating, COMPUTERS, and just about everything else we consider useful in todays society. I agree with all, but just like the issue in the middle east, it's a pipe dream to think that ANYTHING is going to make it go away. The human race by it's exsistance WILL polute and there really aint a damn thing that will fix it.
LAGUERRE
-
Record temperatures for July:
New York City - 105 in 1966
Salt Lake - 107 in 1960
Obviously, detailed in depth research shows that it's been cooling down since the 60's. :)
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Elfenwolf, no one likes a smart ass. :D
By the by, anyone know how many chickens died in the last heat wave in the northern US, south-eastern Ontario?
Heheh...don't worry about it...everything is just fine. :D
Sorry Thrawn, it's just that I'm predisposed to take the opposite side that Hortlund is on. After re-reading the thread though I'm encouraged to see that Hortlund is starting to come around. We'll convert him to a hand wringing tree hugging socialist yet. And as far as the chickens go, if they were allowed to roam natural and free and used simply as egg producers I suppose it would be OK to eat the eggs provided they were consumed within the first trimester of being laid.
-
Elfie,
Yah had me worried in that "Mother of all trolls" little stunt you pulled! But ya make me laugh so much that I think I'd like to tell you something that will make you happy.
You'll be happy to know that I went fishing in the 99 deg sun this past sunday. From 1:30 to 6:30 with about 15 minutes of shade from the few clouds that would block the sun ever so momentarily. That's 5 hours out in the HOT sun fishing. I had not one bite! Curses! Foiled again! My roommate however caught a couple of 13" black bass and a nice 18" fat sucker, but they all went back into the lake.
I do however have 2 fishing trips planned in the next 3 weekends. One on the saturday of the con and the other the week after. The latter is salt water fishing :D with my company. I'll try and get some keepers so I can give you a picture of one of these beautiful creatures that God gave us :)
Glad you're skull did't get broken, but if you pull a stunt like that again we will break it the next time we see you! ya bassturd! :D
-
Sorry Udie, I kinda explained it in the Man Arrested For Grilling Kitten thread. I was hoping it would die a slow death, but.... (sigh)