Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Thrawn on November 04, 2002, 01:26:10 PM
-
"Australia post driest months on record
Monday, November 4, 2002 Posted: 7:59 AM EST (1259 GMT)
SYDNEY, Australia (Reuters) -- Australia's drought has become the most severe for any seven-month period since records began more than 100 years ago, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology said on Friday.
In records going back to 1900, the April to October period this year ranked number one both in terms of landmass covered and the lack of rainfall, it said. "
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WEATHER/11/04/australia.drought.reut/index.html
And the march of global warming goes on.
My I'm full of good news lately.
-
Over the past 5 years it's been getting substantially warmer in the metro DC area....
This year, it's been colder than average and got much colder much earlier than it did just last year.....
Global warming, or a weather pattern that our instruments can not predict... take yer pick.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Global warming, or a weather pattern that our instruments can not predict... take yer pick.
-SW
Possible. And it's possible that the draughts in the Canadian and US mid-west and west coast are also anomilies. It's also possible that the horrible flooding in the Manitoba previous to that was an anomily. As well as the unprecidented flooding in Europe, Texas and the far east are an anomly.
Or it there could be something linking it, such as global warming.
-
Ice Age was preceeded by flooding....
The earth has it's natural weather patterns that we can not affect.
There's just as much proof that we are effecting the earth's weather as the earth is effecting it's own weather.
-SW
-
Well your government disagrees with you.
"What's Known for Certain?
Scientists know for certain that human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide (CO2 ), in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times have been well documented. There is no doubt this atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities.
It's well accepted by scientists that greenhouse gases trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere and tend to warm the planet. By increasing the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, human activities are strengthening Earth's natural greenhouse effect. The key greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries."
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/climateuncertainties.html
Do you want to see who else does? Global warming is a fact. Humans are affecting the surface temperature of this planet.
-
I think mother natures had plenty of El Nino's, El Nina's, and global changes in her history...and I think its arrogant of humans to think that they alone could change weather patterns on earth with an entity as mighty as her.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
I think mother natures had plenty of El Nino's, El Nina's, and global changes in her history...and I think its arrogant of humans to think that they alone could change weather patterns on earth with an entity as mighty as her.
It might me arrogent, but it's been prove to the satisifaction of the vast majority of scientists and governments.
-
I hear that a lot Thrawn... years later the whole thing changes again... temps go down, go up in other areas, droughts get real bad, then get better, flooding gets real bad, then gets better..
As for using your drought argument in the mid-west of the US...
There have been several severe droughts there in the course of US history...
Next thing you'll know, earthquakes are a result of too many overly flatulant overweight men and women and volcanos are the inner center of the earth suffering explosive diarhea.
I know all about the greenhouse gases, last time I heard anything about them... they were reduced drastically, both in the atmosphere and in output... well, for certain countries.. there's still a flotilla of third world countries without any pollution regulations....
-SW
-
IMHO the cycles of hot, warm, ice, etc are typical of the Earth.
What is NOT typical is how fast we (humans) are making them happen.
To think that we aren't affecting the planet is a joke. The question is how much we're affecting it...
-
Thrawn, one gem Wulfe had in his post: Your talking to the wrong market...go to India...they recently declined to change anything in accordance to some global environmental group. The US as well as many of the Western countries lead the world in clean air/pollution polices.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
"Australia post driest months on record
Monday, November 4, 2002 Posted: 7:59 AM EST (1259 GMT)
SYDNEY, Australia (Reuters) -- Australia's drought has become the most severe for any seven-month period since records began more than 100 years ago, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology said on Friday.
"Mad Max" with Mel Gibson was on television over the weekend - repeated a couple of times, too. Coincidence?
-
Swulfe, Rip.
What the hell are you guys actually arguing here?
That chemsists can take a gas and not prove that it reflects heat?
That they can't correctly calculate how much of that gas is pumped into our atmosphere?
That they can't calulate how much of that is reabsorbed by plants etc. and how much is left sitting in our atmosphere?
That they can't test the atmosphere and see how much green house gas is actually present there?
Our is your entire agruement base on mushy warm feelings about mother eather and that it was warm in DC for four years and then got cold for one?
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Thrawn, one gem Wulfe had in his post: Your talking to the wrong market...go to India...they recently declined to change anything in accordance to some global environmental group. The US as well as many of the Western countries lead the world in clean air/pollution polices.
So the Indian, Chinese, US and some Canadian provinical governments are a bunch of ultra melons.
I'm doing my bit to keep this community informed about the issue so if everything goes tits up, I don't feel guilty about not doing my bit to keep you jerks infomed. Aren't I wonderful. ;)
-
The problem is that they are going we've got greenhouse gases, we can measure them, and we can tell you that at the very least they are destroying our atmosphere (points at newly divided ozone hole) and that they can guesstimate how much heat is retained versus how much they guesstimate should be let go.
That's all good and dandy... but when they start comparing that to our insignificant 100 (or less) years of recording weather and other planetary effects, then you get a bit skeptical when they say.. "this year is 1/8 of a degree warmer than last year"..
Yeah, the weather is f'ed up and a lot different... but the earth goes through cycles of that.
Personally, greenhouse gases ain't toejam... it's those damn toxins that are floating around sea level and make it damn near impossible to breath in big cities during the summer that are causing more of a problem than the 1/8th of a degree increase (that will be cut in half by next year's 1/16th of a degree decrease).
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
The problem is that they are going we've got greenhouse gases, we can measure them, and we can tell you that at the very least they are destroying our atmosphere (points at newly divided ozone hole) and that they can guesstimate how much heat is retained versus how much they guesstimate should be let go.
Swulfe, your ignorance on the subject is shouwing. CFCs that destroye ozone and global warming are two seperate issues.
That's all good and dandy... but when they start comparing that to our insignificant 100 (or less) years of recording weather and other planetary effects, then you get a bit skeptical when they say.. "this year is 1/8 of a degree warmer than last year"..
Core samples of glacial ice that go back millenia show that the rate of warming that we are expriencing now has happen for eons.
And yes air polution in general is crappy, but I don't see it as near the threat the global warming is.
-
Thrawn,
Go back and look at 1995-96, compare it to this years droughts in Ausie, Canada, and the US and then compare what is starting to happen in the US and Canada now vrs what happened in 1996-97.
-
In the 1960's the main concern was that we were adding too much ozone and could cause a global freeze.
It seems to me that both sides of the global warming debate seem to believe they represent the "majority".
I know that two years ago, we had a very hot and dry summer. Yet it wasn't the hottest and it was not the dryest. This year, it was very dry, but never really got all that hot (hit 100 once).
We've recently seen record amounts of snow in the winter with record colds as well.
It really seems like people are more concerned with proving their pre-conceived point than an actual unbiased assesment of what is really going on.
AKDejaVu
-
what we need are tighter controls on greenhouses , so that their gases don't excape into the atmosphere, way too many leaky greenhouses and most of them are in Canada.
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu
It really seems like people are more concerned with proving their pre-conceived point than an actual unbiased assesment of what is really going on.
AKDejaVu
Its called "Funding"
-
that and our very limited life-spans means we'll probably never really know if the cycles are normal or modified by humans...
for now.. I"M skiing
in a couple of hundred.. maybe I'll be surfing..
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Its called "Funding"
That's right Rip there's a global wide climatological CONSIPACY!! :eek:
Did the people in the black helicopter's tell you that?
All the weather related anomilies this year maybe do just natural flucations. I just hope that if they continue getting worse you guys realise that there maybe another cause and that cause may be globlal warming, and it may continue to get much worse.
Regardless of how many of you say, "well it's cold here right now." The global surface temperature has increase by 1 to 2 degrees celcius over the past 100 years. That's an absolutely mind boggling amount of energy is a geographical minute about of time. There will be repercussions.
What's more the surface temperture is exprected to go up by another 9 degrees celcius over the next 100 years.
-
They can't even get the 5 day weather forcast right most of the time.
It's more likely in my mind that they will come back 5 years from now and say oops that whole global warming thing was a mistake, it was actually just a natural cycle that won't really hurt anyone or extinct the human race, sorry about that.
Originally posted by Thrawn
What's more the surface temperture is exprected to go up by another 9 degrees celcius over the next 100 years.
-
Originally posted by Kanth
They can't even get the 5 day weather forcast right most of the time.
Global warming climatology is more akin to atmospheric chemistry as opposed to local wether forcasting.
It's more likely in my mind that they will come back 5 years from now and say oops that whole global warming thing was a mistake, it was actually just a natural cycle that won't really hurt anyone or extinct the human race, sorry about that.
Let's hope so. But, the weight of evidence shows that this won't be the case.
-
Recently, climatologists and other scientists have issued the summaries of studies which suggest that the hole in the ozone layer could "slam shut in 50 years." Two factors were mentioned which have contributed to this turnaround; the banning of the manufacture and use of Cfcs and the greater natural production of ozone.
Besides lightning strikes, what else can cause the natural production of ozone?
Curious, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by H. Godwineson
Besides lightning strikes, what else can cause the natural production of ozone?
Curious, Shuckins
Ultra violet light.
http://daac.gsfc.nasa.gov/CAMPAIGN_DOCS/ATM_CHEM/ozone_cycle.html
-
Swulfe, your ignorance on the subject is shouwing. CFCs that destroye ozone and global warming are two seperate issues.
No, actually it's not... it's just proving that you ran out of stuff to argue with me about and decided to label me as ignorant.
Greenhouse gases a) destroy the ozone and b) may or may not be retaining a lot more heat.
AFAIK, Ozone(not the Earth's natural one) is still classified as a greenhouse gas.
Core samples of glacial ice that go back millenia show that the rate of warming that we are expriencing now has happen for eons.
Wouldn't this agree with what I've been saying?
-SW
-
Yes, some greenhouse gases also destroy ozone. Yes ozone is a naturally occuring greenhouse gas, but...
"Some greenhouse gases occur naturally in the atmosphere, while others result from human activities. Naturally occuring greenhouse gases include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. Certain human activities, however, add to the levels of most of these naturally occurring gases:Carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere when solid waste, fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), and wood and wood products are burned.
Methane is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. Methane emissions also result from the decomposition of organic wastes in municipal solid waste landfills, and the raising of livestock.
Nitrous oxide is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities, as well as during combustion of solid waste and fossil fuels.
Very powerful greenhouse gases that are not naturally occurring include hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), which are generated in a variety of industrial processes
may or may not be retaining a lot more heat.
That's incorrect.
"Each greenhouse gas differs in its ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere. HFCs and PFCs are the most heat-absorbent. Methane traps over 21 times more heat per molecule than carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide absorbs 270 times more heat per molecule than carbon dioxide. Often, estimates of greenhouse gas emissions are presented in units of millions of metric tons of carbon equivalents (MMTCE), which weights each gas by its GWP value, or Global Warming Potential."
Me: Core samples of glacial ice that go back millenia show that the rate of warming that we are expriencing now has happen for eons.
You: Wouldn't this agree with what I've been saying?
Yes, but that's because I'm an idiot. It should read, "hasn't happened for eons.".
-
Man all I know is that back when I was a kid, I wanted to watch cartoons on saturday mornings. I remember being bombarded with comercials with the popular children actors of the time telling me that by the year 2000 the worlds oil suply would be gone and nonsense like that. School House Rock was good, that actually taught stuff like, conjunction junction what's you're function and how bills became laws and stuff. But those all those "other" commercials did for me is scare me and make me think for 1/2 my life that life on the planet would end on the year 2000.
Didn't God say something about wars and rumors of wars and earthquakes and storms and floods and droughts and stuff like that just before the rapture? I'm sure Eagler will agree with me that we should all quit worrying about this stupid stuff and keep the big picture in mind. Be ready....
-
You guys are right! Global temperatures have risen dramatically over the past 12,000 years, something must be done to return mother nature to her true harmonius state of generally being frozen.
-
Well, there's the Ozone that's naturally occuring, then there's the Ozone that was used as a compressant-> old fridges, air conditioners (house and car), and spray paint cans.
One Ozone, chemically made by, us destroys the one naturally made by a combination of natural things.
So, no where in the ice were there samples that show a period of rapid warming?
I'm sure if they were looking for that, they would find it...
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
One Ozone, chemically made by, us destroys the one naturally made by a combination of natural things.
They are the same gas. One happens to be really high up in the atmosphere.
So, no where in the ice were there samples that show a period of rapid warming?
I'm sure if they were looking for that, they would find it...
-SW
Not for hundreds of thousands of years anyways.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Its called "Funding"
You are so right. I almost wonder if Thrawn has worked with college prophesors at all.
I have to deal with them on a regular basis. They tell you anything drastic to try to get you to give them money then forget to bring money so you have to pay for their lunch.
My, some of the tall tale theories you get when they are looking for another grant.
AKDejaVu
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Global warming climatology is more akin to atmospheric chemistry as opposed to local wether forcasting.
My point was more focusing on the people forcasting than the differences between the sciences.
Now are you saying that scientists will have better luck predicting the possible outcomes of something that has happened once in eons (beacuse it has happened before we just weren't there)
than they will have mastering something that happens every day?
-
Yes Kanth, I am.
The frequency of an event doen't necessarily have a direct correlation to our understanding of it.
Deja, Rip. Are you two say there is a global conspiracy, that reaches all levels of most of the worlds governments (from your own government's EPA to the UN), as well as hundreds of institutions of higher learning, and thousands of scientists?
And that this conspiracy is in affect to use global warming to get more grant money?
Well, that is possible. Another possibity is that you both have no diddlying clue what the hell you are talking about.
Sure, any liberal comes up with a wacked out conspiracy theory and it's all "Black helicopter" time. But then you guys come up with this dreck?
Man, okay, say it is a conspiracy theory...prove it.
Because, I got to tell you there is Golly-geen tons of empirical date that proves that global warming is scientific fact.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Because, I got to tell you there is Golly-geen tons of empirical date that proves that global warming is scientific fact.
Yes, 1Degree in 120 years... that's quite some warming!
Yes, I know... 1990-2000 were the hottest years of the past 120.... then again, what does it all matter in the end?
Third world countries keep pumping that nasty CFC, and other, toejam out... we sit here and make clean air policies and regulations only for our attempts to be nullified by those dirty, poor countries.
You can tell me that we should help them get up to standards and follow our regulations and policies, and I'll tell you at that point their lil' pollution creating piss ant country's bellybutton belongs to US! The us is any country that decides to step forth and do it...
Otherwise, "eh"...
How now brown Asian cloud?
Cleaning up the air is a lil' more important than a 1deg increase in 120 years...
-SW
-
No Thrawn, I said nothing about global conspiracy. That would imply that most people agree on this subject now.. wouldn't it?
I'm saying that college professors live off of grant money. They only get money based on studies that people actually care about. The problem is, they also only get money if they come up with something new and inventive. The status quo is never right, because if it were, there'd be no need for a grant.
This is how two proffessors with identical training can come to two opposite conclusions on the same subject. Truth be told, they have to if they want to get a grant.
AKDejaVu
-
>You can tell me that we should help them get up to standards
>and follow our regulations and policies, and I'll tell you at that
>point their lil' pollution creating piss ant country's bellybutton belongs to
>US! The us is any country that decides to step forth and do it...
Whats wrong with helping a less advanced country industrialy come up to modern day standards in polution. The more modern countries have had 100 or more years to polute the atmosphere and have had their share in that. Besides helping them be less polutant to themselves and us is good for economics in general. Its a good way to go about doing things and if anything is a leverage or stone in world economics and trading. Im not talking about spending large amounts of money to smog them. Economic incentives at their cost, perhaps somehow shared through common polution safe processes etc... bla bla bla.
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu
No Thrawn, I said nothing about global conspiracy. That would imply that most people agree on this subject now.. wouldn't it?
Most climatologists do.
Thanks for correcting me on the global conspiracy issue.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
I think mother natures had plenty of El Nino's, El Nina's, and global changes in her history...and I think its arrogant of humans to think that they alone could change weather patterns on earth with an entity as mighty as her.
Hmmm... Think they showed a correlation between air travel (contrails) and effects on temperature in this country during the three days after 9-11 that air travel was suspended.
I've also heard backyard swimming pools are the cause of increased humidity in Phoenix... (not sure if it's true.)
-
Thank you Thrawn,
That is true.
One more question, in the article that you linked to and quoted I don't see meteorologists linking this 'weather' to global warming
(atmopheric chemistry.)
was that your conclusion?
Originally posted by Thrawn
Yes Kanth, I am.
The frequency of an event doen't necessarily have a direct correlation to our understanding of it.
-
Thrawn did you do what I asked,,,,,
Rip hit it on the head. It is El Nino. If you look back at all the years that you have crop disasters though the years it all relates back to El Nino. The weather data that we can use goes back to about the early 1800's. I have been a commodity trader since 1978 and have seen 3 of them myself...
There is some data that does support global warming but there is much more that you can use that supports ocean temps and particulate effects (volcanos,,etc.) that have more effect of global weather.
-
I say we live it up, regardless of what scientists say. We'll all be dead when the toejam hits the fan anyways.
-
Originally posted by Kanth
was that your conclusion?
I don't think I would even give it the wait of the word conclusion. I can draw a direct correlation between this very event and global warming.
Drastic weather is a predicted symptom of global warming. All that excess energy has to go somewhere and weather is simply the affect of solar radiation hitting the earth and heating up the atmosphere.
ygsmilo, do you know what El Nino is and how often it occurs?
-
scientists.. governments..
experts... all say... blah blah blah.
in that vein.. 50 billion flies, every last one of 'em an expert on the subject; agree... "EAT toejam!!"
-
Thrawn, is this the part where I jump in and say "We're all gonna die! WE'RE ALL gonna DIE! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!" ?
Or should a wait a bit for that?
BTW, after driving from KC to Dallas for the con with Milo and discussing his biz, I think I can say you'll find him VERY tuned in to weather patterns all over the world.
When you think about it, understanding weather is a MAJOR player in his livelihood and he's very good at what he does.
WE'RE ALL GONNA
oops.. OK, I'll wait.
-
oh.. so sorry. forgot the obligitory smiley face.
;)
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
I don't think I would even give it the wait of the word conclusion. I can draw a direct correlation between this very event and global warming.
Drastic weather is a predicted symptom of global warming. All that excess energy has to go somewhere and weather is simply the affect of solar radiation hitting the earth and heating up the atmosphere.
Nevermind, in the past one hundred years the surface of this planet has been further reshaped with the advent of cars, planes and large commercialized cities...
I wonder how much of the earth's surface was coated with concrete, asphalt and cement back in 1880.. compared to now, in 2002...
-SW
-
Milo is right and so is Thrawn.
THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY.
There is almost a consensus in the scientific community that man has affected the weather. How much of an effect is still up for grabs. This does not mean that you should keep your head in the sand, nor does it mean that it is time to order that 30 year supply of food and head for the bunker.
Once again an issue becomes all or nothing with little wiggle room for that snake called reason.
-
It appears from this link that you posted..
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/climate.html
the changing climate information appears to predict more rainfall, and not less.
it appears to be saying that there will be more rainfall because it's not soaking into the ground (evaporational increase)...which leaves the soil dryer.
from the CNN article you have posted, they appear to be complaining about a draught, or lack of rainfall which goes directly against the signs of global warming.
so I would like to understand the direct correlation between draught or lack of rainfall and the symtoms of global warming (more rainfall less evaporation) as they are specified by your link.
if you could show me.
Originally posted by Thrawn
I don't think I would even give it the wait of the word conclusion. I can draw a direct correlation between this very event and global warming.
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Yes, 1Degree in 120 years... that's quite some warming!
Yes, I know... 1990-2000 were the hottest years of the past 120.... then again, what does it all matter in the end?
Third world countries keep pumping that nasty CFC, and other, toejam out... we sit here and make clean air policies and regulations only for our attempts to be nullified by those dirty, poor countries.
You can tell me that we should help them get up to standards and follow our regulations and policies, and I'll tell you at that point their lil' pollution creating piss ant country's bellybutton belongs to US! The us is any country that decides to step forth and do it...
Otherwise, "eh"...
How now brown Asian cloud?
Cleaning up the air is a lil' more important than a 1deg increase in 120 years...
-SW
(http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/graphics/top20_1998.gif) Source: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/graphics/top20_1998.gif (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/graphics/top20_1998.gif)
Lucky you're not talking about greenhouse gases: were we to bring other countries in line with US standards, regulations and policies on per capita CO2 emissions, the planet would be much worse off. China [as a prime example of a dreadful communist 3rd world piss ant polluter country] would have to produce about 500% more CO2 than it does now. India would need to increase it's CO2 emissions by about 1500%.
As to the temperature increase being unimportant - West Nile, malaria & dengue represent quite significant threats to human health - and with every fraction of a degree C increase they creep further North. Given the choice between chronic asthma/respiratory disease or dengue/malaria, I'm not sure which I'd choose - both choices suck.
Malaria in Virginia (http://www.cdc.gov/travel/other/notice_malaria.htm)
West nile (http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/westnile/index.htm)
Dengue - Aedes aegypti (http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/dengue/map-distribution-2000.htm)
Dengue also gets spread by Aedes albopictus (http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/arbor/albopic_97_sm.htm)
-
Carbon Dioxide?
Well hell, if all them third world countries would leave the rain forests alone... that wouldn't be as much of a problem.
AFAIK, this years brown cloud is called Asian because it ain't over America.
-SW
-
Kanth, actually it can lead to both.
"The continued addition of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere is likely to raise the earth's average temperature by several degrees in the next century, which will in turn raise the level of the sea. Most of the United States is expected to warm, although sulfates may limit warming in some areas. Scientists currently are unable to determine which parts of the United States will become wetter or drier, but there is likely to be an overall trend toward increased precipitation and evaporation, more intense rainstorms, and drier soils."
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming.nsf/content/ClimateFutureClimate.html
El Nino happens every five years or so and is usually followed by La Nina. "Today El Nino describes the warm phase of a naturally ccurring sea surface temperature oscillation in the tropical Pacific Ocean." La Nina is a cool phase that follows.
http://www.ogp.noaa.gov/enso/
El Nino has more to do with temperture variations then with the average global surface temperture and in no way explains the persistant and rapidly increasing global surface temperature over the last one hundred years.
Toad, anytime about now would be fine. ;)
MT, I tend to think that the worst case senario doesn't include the eradication of the human specise. Just civilization as we know it. And that is truely worst case. But, I do see it as a definate possiblity. But as you say, I'm not buying 30 tons of survival gear...yet.
Hang, :D
-
Kay I missed the lack of rainfall/draught info, I figured they meant dryer as in less water in the soil because of excess evaporation.
WHATEVER ;)
I'm not gonna read anymore time to post another game maybe I need mindless fun now.
Originally posted by Thrawn
Kanth, actually it can lead to both.
"The continued addition of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere is likely to raise the earth's average temperature by several degrees in the next century, which will in turn raise the level of the sea. Most of the United States is expected to warm, although sulfates may limit warming in some areas. Scientists currently are unable to determine which parts of the United States will become wetter or drier, but there is likely to be an overall trend toward increased precipitation and evaporation, more intense rainstorms, and drier soils."
-
Almost forgot.
Milo, the reason I found this Australian drought more significant then other cyclical droughts, that may have been caused by El Nino. Is the fact that this is the worst recorded drought in Australian history.
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Carbon Dioxide?
Well hell, if all them third world countries would leave the rain forests alone... that wouldn't be as much of a problem.
AFAIK, this years brown cloud is called Asian because it ain't over America.
-SW
Ahh so if all them third world countries would just stay third world countries and leave their rain forests alone the US's disproportionately large CO2 emissions wouldn't be as much of a problem for everyone? Why does the first world have to rely on third world forests? Shouldn't first world, technologically advanced forests be better? - is there a forest gap here?
And those third world countries spending fifty years polluting the heck out of everything is to a large degree untenable precisely because the west has already done that for 200 years, so we can't afford to have anyone else do it too.
I think I see your plan - you keep half the world poor and undeveloped so that you can carry on as usual, and bury your head in the sand - then in a few decades when even that doesn't work and the whole thing goes belly up we can put this epitath on the world: "We could have saved it, but we were too doggone cheap." And after all, who cares really anyway? - we'll all be dead by then - it'll be our kids or our kids' kids that'll face the consequences.
-
Thrawn,
Now you know what it is like trying to do my job every day. There is a saying in my line work: A known fundamental is a useless fundamental.
If you look at this drought in Aussie it is bad but the the previous worst from a crop production prespective was 1995. Currently we project the Aussie wheat crop at bout 11.5 mmt. In 1995 it was 12.5 mmt. OK, what does this mean, well once the El Nino cycle was over 1995 the Aussie wheat crop went to a record crop in 1996 and 1997. The same thing happened in the US. We had our worst wheat crop in modern history this year. The El Nino cycle brings the US a wet mild winter. If you look at the wheat crop currently in the US it is in the best shape that we have been in since 1996, which was a record crop in the US.
Basically what I am saying is that for every argument about global warming and its effects you can find data to support the other side. Currently I have access to 4 different weather services and they all use different models to try to predict what is going to happen. With the information technology that we have today I can look at realtime weather in any part of the world and try to apply that information.
I do think that there is something to be concerned about long term, for example you look at the increase in soybean acres in Brazil. The majority of those acres are coming from areas tributary to the rain forests,,, what effect will the reduction of the rain forests have on the weather in that region.
What I have to do is take all the information at my disposal and form an opinion on what I think the markets and it is very easy get into what I call information overload-
If you want to look at some interesting weather data go search what happened after MT Pinitupo (sp) erupted in the Phil. in the late 1980s.
Gotta get back to work,,,the bean market is rallying. :)
-
Most of those "third world countries" have governments that COULD reduce their pollution.... they just WON'T.
I find it funny though, you say something about how much polluting we did in the past when we didn't know anything about what was going on... yes, yes I know... you guys in your straw huts were smarter because you stayed away from technology... now we do and we are doing something about it and have been.
So if you wanna start pointing fingers, when are you guys gonna cut back on your Sulfur Dioxide? China produces twice as much as America does... and that toejam is way worse than CO2...
-SW
-
Milo,
I understand what you are saying agree that El Nino is a large factor in the drought that is currently happening in Austrailian. I don't think however that addresses that it is the worst drought on record.
Neither does address some other points. Such as the continued, persistant relatively fast regression of glaciers, the melting of the polar ice caps, the rising of the sea level and that the messured surface air temperature has been increasing at a realatively fast rate and that rate appears to be increasing.
Nor does it deal with science behind greenhouse gases, which shows that in there current volume in the atmosphere, they should have the effect of raising the earth's surface temperature.
-
Is it warm enough yet to grow vinyards in New Foundland yet like the way it was when Lief Ericson was there?
What was the Co2 source then?
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Most of those "third world countries" have governments that COULD reduce their pollution.... they just WON'T.
I find it funny though, you say something about how much polluting we did in the past when we didn't know anything about what was going on... yes, yes I know... you guys in your straw huts were smarter because you stayed away from technology... now we do and we are doing something about it and have been.
So if you wanna start pointing fingers, when are you guys gonna cut back on your Sulfur Dioxide? China produces twice as much as America does... and that toejam is way worse than CO2...
-SW
Hmmm so what you're saying is that a country with 4.5 times the population of the US only produces twice the amount of Sulphur dioxide and is therefore dirty? - doesn't that actually mean that the US produces about twice the amount of sulphur dioxide per capita? So would you be happier if China was to have their emissions at the same level as the US and produce 4.5 times the SO2?!?!
-
I typed the following into Google...
"China pollution laws"
"China pollution regulations"
"China pollution policies"
It returned nothing.
I typed in "China pollution"
And I got a whole load of responses.
I would like China to adopt regulations, laws and policies on pollution... it's not that hard to understand.
You seem to think I'm comparing pollution output.. I'm comparing the laws, regulations and policies that we have in place on pollution to the lack-there-of China has.
If China had any pollution laws, maybe it wouldn't produce twice as much SO2 as the US. (As far as Per Capita, pfff.. you still produce twice as much)
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
I typed the following into Google...
"China pollution laws"
"China pollution regulations"
"China pollution policies"
It returned nothing.
I typed in "China pollution"
And I got a whole load of responses.
I would like China to adopt regulations, laws and policies on pollution... it's not that hard to understand.
You seem to think I'm comparing pollution output.. I'm comparing the laws, regulations and policies that we have in place on pollution to the lack-there-of China has.
If China had any pollution laws, maybe it wouldn't produce twice as much SO2 as the US. (As far as Per Capita, pfff.. you still produce twice as much)
-SW
Strange I got 111,000 results when I typed "China pollution laws". Still I'm sure that as per your previous post you won't let the facts obscure your arguments :D Anyhow:
Searched the web for China pollution laws. Results 1 - 10 of about 111,000. Search took 0.21 seconds.
China Environmental Protection - Environmetnal Laws
Environmental Laws in China. Find 49 records! ... Law of the People's Republic of China
on Prevention and Control of Water Pollution [1984-05-11] [1996-5-15]. ...
http://www.zhb.gov.cn/english/law.php3 - 6k - Cached - Similar pages
IC-SEA: SEA-SPAN Posted Message
... mess caused by lax enforcement of pollution laws, outdated technology and massive
underfunding, a new report said. The report, "The China Environmental Market ...
http://www.icsea.or.id/sea-span/0497/IE1202LL.htm - 9k - Cached - Similar pages
quest25
... 3. According to the passage the main problem in making progress in China is: (a)
the lack of laws forbidding environmental pollution (b) the lack of awareness ...
http://www.edict.com.hk/vlc/comp/quest25T.htm - 10k - Cached - Similar pages
Lehman, Lee & Xu
... Links. Environment Laws & Regulations in China. ... Enforcement Regulations for Law
on Prevention of Air Pollution of the People's Republic of China - 1991. ...
http://www.lehmanlaw.com/lib/library/Laws_regulations/ environment.htm - 35k - Cached - Similar pages
laws, policies and regulations of China in English
... Laws, Statutes and files, Regulations and files, ... Regulations of the People's Republic
of China on the Control over Prevention of Pollution by Vessels in Sea ...
law.zhb.gov.cn/index_eng.php - 27k - Cached - Similar pages
Cleaner Production (Pollution Prevention) in China -- Links about ...
... what factors make pollution controls effective. ... laws_maincontent_el.html -- laws and
regulations. ... For information about China's environmental legislation, see CP ...
http://www.chinacp.com/eng/cplinks/envleg.html - 19k - Cached - Similar pages
Fishery Laws and Regulations
A List of Laws and Regulations Related to Fisheries. ... 1983 - The Regulation for Preventing
Marine Pollution from Ship, People's Republic of China, issued by ...
http://www.lib.noaa.gov/china/archi/law.htm - 6k - Cached - Similar pages
Human & Nature in Harmony - Legislation - Laws (Page 1)
Legislation: Laws, All. 49 Record(s): 1 2, NEXT. ... Law of the People's Republic of China
on Prevention and Control of Pollution From Environmental ...
http://www.enviroinfo.org.cn/LEGIS/Laws/index_en.html - 11k - Cached - Similar pages
China: Laws and Policies to Protect the Environment and Health
... Environmental Laws and Regulations. Since the promulgation of the Environmental
Protection Law in 1979, the first of its kind in China, 5 pollution-control ...
http://www.wri.org/wri/wr-98-99/prc2laws.htm - 18k - Cached - Similar pages
Integrating Environmental Considerations into the Economic ...
... The laws and regulations such as the Law on Prevention and Control of Water Pollution
in the People's Republic of China, the Law on Prevention and Control of ...
http://www.unescap.org/drpad/publication/integra/ volume2/china/2ch05e02.htm - 13k - Cached - Similar pages
Try that first link http://www.zhb.gov.cn/english/law.php3- it gets you straight to the laws on environmental pollution in the PRC.
For a serious negative on google try "US ratifies Kyoto" ;)
As to "the laws, regulations and policies that we have in place on pollution to the lack-there-of China has" - you still produce twice as much SO2 per capita with all your regulations, so they are pretty dodgy controls at best. My point is that were China to implement similar controls then we should expect them to produce double the amount of pollution they do now.
-
Dead, that's because I put it into the search engine exactly as I typed it above. Including the "... which means it will search for all three of those words and unless it has all three, I won't get a result.
Now, as for the single link you listed as the laws... scroll a lil' further down that list of links you got...
"mess caused by lax enforcement of pollution laws, outdated technology and massive
underfunding, a new report said."
"According to the passage the main problem in making progress in China is: (a)
the lack of laws forbidding environmental pollution (b) the lack of awareness ... "
As for the Kyoto Treaty... hey, if your country wants to follow the guidelines of a poorly written treaty... be my guest... why should we sign something that is ineffective?
you still produce twice as much SO2 per capita with all your regulations, so they are pretty dodgy controls at best. My point is that were China to implement similar controls then we should expect them to produce double the amount of pollution they do now.
That's all semantics and BS... you STILL produce twice as much SO2 OVERALL. Per Capita don't matter if you guys still produce TWICE as MUCH OVERALL. Get it now?
If you adopted better regulations, laws and policies, maybe you would produce HALF as MUCH OVERALL... which would actually bring you down to the level of the US, instead of increasing...
Funny, since we put our regulations in place... pollution has gone down dramatically... I don't see how that's "dodge controls at best" if it decreased...
-SW
-
Is the fact that this is the worst recorded drought in Australian history.
wow. all 250 years of it?
in fact, a pitifuly short nanosecond of history as compared to 'since the last ice age'.
I don't mean to belittle the debate.. but to my ears, it smacks of chicken little syndrome. When I think of how much we pay, as americans, for our precious 'green'; initiatives; as compared to what the citizenry of the rest of the would pays out of pocket as concessions to mother nature... and then again look at the state of mans transgressions against the planets biosphere NOW as compared to 1800... folks we ain't dumpin half as much crap into the air as a nation as London alone did 200 years ago.
As for the chineese.. fek the lil bastids.
I doubt seriously that paving half of califonia is gonna effect the endgame for that place... matters not if the roads are dirt, asphalt or concrete out there, frankly, its just not gonna have a damn thing to do with how far under water the damn place is gonna wind up in the next hundered years.
..and when osma's minions finally reduce NYC to rubble, I ain't gonna give a toejam how many tons of hydrocarbons china tosses into the atmosphere.
Priorities.
-
I'm not trying to lay blame for global warming, I'm trying to point out the dangers of it.
As for priorities, how much damage does it have to do before it becomes a concern?
-
Thrawn, as evidenced in this thread, it IS a concern. Otherwise the US wouldn't have the EPA...
The problem is, not the entire world cares... and on top of that, there's very few other alternatives...
we could stop the whole pollution thing by going back to horse drawn wagons, living out of straw huts and... well basically go back 1000+ years...
Industrialization creates pollution, and there are very few alternatives available. They are being investigated and more are coming along...
but basically, aside from pollution control and the FEW alternatives... there ain't jack we can do about it....
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Dead, that's because I put it into the search engine exactly as I typed it above. Including the "... which means it will search for all three of those words and unless it has all three, I won't get a result.
Now, as for the single link you listed as the laws... scroll a lil' further down that list of links you got...
"mess caused by lax enforcement of pollution laws, outdated technology and massive
underfunding, a new report said."
"According to the passage the main problem in making progress in China is: (a)
the lack of laws forbidding environmental pollution (b) the lack of awareness ... "
As for the Kyoto Treaty... hey, if your country wants to follow the guidelines of a poorly written treaty... be my guest... why should we sign something that is ineffective?
you still produce twice as much SO2 per capita with all your regulations, so they are pretty dodgy controls at best. My point is that were China to implement similar controls then we should expect them to produce double the amount of pollution they do now.
That's all semantics and BS... you STILL produce twice as much SO2 OVERALL. Per Capita don't matter if you guys still produce TWICE as MUCH OVERALL. Get it now?
If you adopted better regulations, laws and policies, maybe you would produce HALF as MUCH OVERALL... which would actually bring you down to the level of the US, instead of increasing...
Funny, since we put our regulations in place... pollution has gone down dramatically... I don't see how that's "dodge controls at best" if it decreased...
-SW
Actually the quotes means it searches for the exact phrase - so really you should probably type it in Simplified Chinese - seeing as that's the language they write all the laws in :D
As to the semantics & BS charge - well I obviously haven't gone over the key concept in simple enough terms: The more people there are, the more pollution is created.
So lets turn your argument on onto your own country. I have chosen the UK in this instance because the US has approximately 4.5 times the population of the UK - so it's close to comparing China and the US.
The US produces seven times the amount of SO2 Overall that the UK does. Note that - not 2, not 4.5 but 7 times the amount. How do you explain that? Don't forget - any appeal to "per capita" and population size is just semantics and BS - [presumably in your argument it's all down to regulations]. Perhaps if the US adopted better regulations, laws and policies, maybe you would produce ONE SEVENTH as MUCH OVERALL... which would actually bring you down to the level of the UK?
As to the "China is filthy" links - sure - China is a filthy polluter - it's only clean in comparison to the US. My point is that any US outcry over third world pollution is more than just a tad hypocritical - People who live in greenhouses shouldn't throw stones. :D
-
Update.
That worst drought on record in Australia still going on.
"Australia's Drought Worsens as Autumn Rains Fail, Bureau Says
June 2 (Bloomberg) -- Rains failed across most of southeastern Australia in the autumn, worsening a drought covering almost half the farmland in the world's second-largest wheat-exporting nation, the government's weather forecaster said.
The March-to-May season was the driest since rainfall records were first kept in 1900 in the states of Victoria and South Australia, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology said in a statement on its Web site today. New South Wales state recorded its second-lowest autumn rainfall, while the island state of Tasmania had its fourth-driest season on record.
``There has been no prolonged period of widespread above- average falls'' to ease the country's worst drought in 100 years, which began in 2002, the bureau said. ``Furthermore, the effects of rainfall deficits have been exacerbated by some of the highest temperatures on record.''
Farmers in Australia, also the world's second-biggest beef and canola exporter, count on rain between April and May to moisten soils ahead of crop planting and to boost pasture supply. With drought gripping 45 percent of agricultural land, crop prospects are deteriorating and may cut profit at companies including GrainCorp Ltd., Australia's biggest grain handler.
Treasurer Peter Costello said yesterday farm industries are suffering, hampering the country's economic growth."
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000081&sid=apOzXMTCnnic&refer=australia
I wonder what hurricane season in Florida will be like this year.
-
Originally posted by Kanth
They can't even get the 5 day weather forcast right most of the time.
It's more likely in my mind that they will come back 5 years from now and say oops that whole global warming thing was a mistake, it was actually just a natural cycle that won't really hurt anyone or extinct the human race, sorry about that.
Hiya Kanth, longtime no see! Maybe you can sail on over to
the east coast when the flooding starts! :)
-
Holy thread necromancy, Kanth posted almost three years ago.
-
And it still hasn't bloody rained!! :(
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
I wonder what hurricane season in Florida will be like this year.
Well here's at least a partial answer to that question.
"New storm brews in Atlantic
Last Updated Tue, 12 Jul 2005 07:25:28 EDT
CBC News
A fifth named storm, dubbed Emily, developed in the Atlantic Ocean late Monday and could set its sights on the Caribbean later this week.
The tropical storm is churning up waters about 1,600 km south of the Lesser Antilles with winds of about 70 km/h. The Antilles are a chain of small islands between the Caribbean Sea and the Atlantic.
Emily marks the first time there have been five named storms so early in the Atlantic hurricane season."
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/07/12/tropicalstorm-050712.html
-
The sun has shone and the temperature has been hot for the last three days. It's like...........summer. It's a sure sign of global warming. It's all our fault we did it. We made the rain stop. In less than a hundred years of serious industrialisation we made the world warm up.
You know why? Because 75% of scientists that ever lived are still alive today and need to justify their existence. So they act like the high priests of old and scare us. They are privy to the great knowledge. Mother Earth is angry because of the folly of our ways. We must repent, reuse and recycle, sayeth the scientists.
Anyone who does not believe this is a blasphemer. There are many signs and portents. Floods, famines and sunny days.
Just like the old religions. Bad weather, severe weather, storms, volcanoes and floods meant God or the Gods were angry or displeased. Thus they must be appeased.
That is what much of global warming is about. When you get right down to it. We humans are still the superstitious beings we always were. The difference is now that we are better educated and less inclined to believe in a supernatural cause. Now to appease the Gods we reuse and recycle or leave the car at home and travel on the bus with all the people who cannot afford a car.
There is serious science being done but you can bet your bottom dollar that if any of it contradicts the great message that we humans caused global warming and that the world is warming up rapidly and it's all our fault. Then it will thrashed by everyone. Like an atheist at a bible meeting.
Maybe it is true but my personal instinct is that most people are mostly wrong most of the time.
I just cannot accept that the warm spell we are having right now is proveably caused by humans.
Yes I am an ecological blasphemer. You should hear the trouble I get into when I point out that recycling glass (sand) and paper (grows on farmed trees) causes more greenhouse gases than simply putting them in a hole in the ground.
But what do I know? I'm not a scientist and thus privy to the great truth.
:lol
-
I have heard that conspiracy theory many times before, cpxxx. However I have not yet seen one shread of evidence to support it.
While have I have seen much evidence to support theory that global warming is happening, and the primary cause is humans.
-
The Sky is Falling, The Sky is Falling........
:rolleyes:
-
Thanks for contributing so much to the discourse.
-
Please explain. If global warming is caused by humans then it follows that prior to humans there has never been global warming prior to human habitation of the globe. Correct? Then there have never been ice ages or any time when the globe came out of them. OK.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
I have heard that conspiracy theory many times before, cpxxx. However I have not yet seen one shread of evidence to support it.
While have I have seen much evidence to support theory that global warming is happening, and the primary cause is humans.
Not really a conspiracy of sorts. Whether you want to admit this or not the current environmental movement is the new home of world socialists who have as their main objective not so much to save the "environment" as to cripple world capitalism.
Whether you will believe them or not I will supply you with a few articles that will attempt to debunk the current trend of junk-science in regard to global warming.
http://www.junkscience.com/july04/Daily_Mail-Bellamy.htm
http://www.junkscience.com/apr99/singer.htm
http://www.junkscience.com/apr99/michaels.htm
To support the "conspiracy theory"
http://www.junkscience.com/foxnews/fn111700.htm
http://www.junkscience.com/foxnews/fn020901.htm
Mr. Malloy is a very credible source as I have yet to see anyone debunk or discount his observations.
The protection of our environment is a serious matter that should not be placed in the hands of people who's motivations are in serious question.
Another case in point is the DDT controversy. There is absolutly no hard evidence that DDT caused cancer in humans yet that was the main reason for its banning. This ban has cost the deaths of millions of children in places like Africa and Southeast Asia due to Malaria and other mosqito bourne diseases yet we hear nothing close to an admittance from the environmental left. DDT saved millions of lives in the poorest of countries yet the enviro-leftists "lied" to get it banned, WHY?
These same people fight to ban American Genetically engineered, drought resistant grains from being shipped to Africa, again WHY? These grains are proven safe and EFFECTIVE.
These are the same people selling this Global Warming theory to you.
Oh, and one more thing, there is a known problem with Nitrate runoff from the Sugar cane fields in FL into the Everglades. Yes it is a problem and everyone admits it is a problem. The Government and the Sugar producers have put into place a system of earth filters that IS working. BUT! Because it is taking a bit longer than expected to put all these things into place the Enviro-leftists want to scrap the whole program and place punative damages on the sugar producers. Again, WHY? This one I will answer, because they want to hurt the sugar industry. They want to effect damage on the economy of this country, BE DAMNED what the truth is.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
I have heard that conspiracy theory many times before, cpxxx. However I have not yet seen one shread of evidence to support it.
While have I have seen much evidence to support theory that global warming is happening, and the primary cause is humans.
There is no conspiracy Thrawn. No central coordinator. No one is pulling the strings. No left wing socialist conspiracy. No media conspiracy. It doesn't exist. There is no evidence, not a shred. There is no conspiracy.
Quite simply everyone or nearly everyone believes the 'overwhelming evidence'. The 'overwhelming evidence' is simply the combined snowball effect of the results of research and opinion of scientists and environmentalists. The media as is it's duty reports these 'facts' in a distilled form so the ordinary person can understand it.
The result is that intelligent people like you Thrawn, believe you have seen sufficent, even overwhelming evidence the human caused global warming is an indisputable fact.
Unfortunately if the evidence was presented in a court of law, none of it would stand up to scrutiny. There is 'reasonable doubt'.
The problem is like every aspect of human life, scientific theories fall prey to all the human failings. Scientists like to believe and promulgate the idea that they have sufficient checiks and balances such that any conclusion they come to is as close to fact as is possible. I don't believe that, scientists are human like the rest of us. Suppose a scientist came across something that negated something he believed in for his whole career. Would he be strong enough to throw it all away and run with the new evidence? Maybe, probably not.
My wife is a scientist in the medical field. When I can pin her down she finally admits there is more than a little 'interpretation' in some of the stuff she does. No scientist likes to admit that.
I simply think that the idea of human caused global warming has gained popular acceptance simply because people believe that scientists must be right based on the limited information they read or hear on TV. It's a question of belief just like belief in God. I for one will only believe it when God comes down and tells me it's true.