Global Warming... is THIS how we'll perish?

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Debonair
From a guy with a lunar 'tard, thats stunningly strong hypocracy

How so?

[Toad]

Anybody else think it's hot in here?

[Debonair]

Originally posted by Sandman
How so?

The moon is lacking in albedo.
It was a joke.

Was it? I though jokes were funny...

Yeah, I guess it wasn't, but at least now I know what color "burlywood" is.

with a name like "burlywood" i didn't expect such a girly color.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Debonair
The moon is lacking in albedo.
It was a joke.

Explains why I didn't get it. The moon does indeed reflect electromagnetic energy. Otherwise, we could not see it.

[Hangtime]

lunatics.

...is there lunar warming?

[Angus]

Rolex has it IMHO quite well described.
The earth has gone through rough changes in ancient times of course, and bear in mind that the fuel we are burning (C) was in the atmosphere once upon a time before plants caught it and tied it up in the soil.
Once upon a time there was an iceage and once upon a time there were hardly any polar caps.

But that does not give any excuse for darting into the unknown with the banner reading "it happened before, so?"
The fact is that we are pumping out CO2 and other gases at an incredible rate, the globe is warming, and the very speed of which this is happening could be the nastiest surprize. It may be difficult to find anything similar in earths recent history when it comes to this speed. And that I belive, the scientists are very afraid of. The chain reaction is unknown.
BTW, water is basically a greenhouse gas as well.....

And the sea rising 1 mile....not enough ice tied up for that. And a bonus, - the ice already floating will not raise the sea level. It's the one tied up on land that will.

[Debonair]

teh m00n has particularly low albedo as compared with almost everything in our solar system, except comets (not the gas halo, but the actual comet).  
teh m0On pwns light

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I think it would be technically (and perhaps semantically) impossible to be 50 miles inland and yet have the sea lapping at your front door.

ROFL! A beautifully Holdenesque observation! Made me smile! HMcG, if either of us ceased to be at this board, I'd sure miss you.

Science does advance in knowledge. Saying that our industrial emissions have no effect on climate or nature at this point in time is akin to denying Earth revolves around the sun. Parroting George Will and his layman logic that a single magazine article written 30 years ago (that improperly drew a conclusion) about an ice age is evidence that all the scientists are wrong today is silly.

Indeed, Rolex. But the world is awash with such blinkered thinking. We have an expression here - "Give a dog a bad name" - which sums up what you're saying.


Climatic Cycles of the Earth

I took this pic in the Yorkshire Dales in 1999, hence crappy camera and photo quality. That's my brother.  Would you believe that the "limestone pavement", on which he is standing, used to be the sea bed, thousands of years ago. The flat stones are called clints, and the gaps between them are called grykes. The grykes were formed and expanded by water lying in them, and are typically about 6ft deep. I know that because I dropped my camera down one! Fortunately, another climber had one of those long walking pole things and managed to get it out for me!



I tried to find out more about the climate change and how it would have been at the time this limestone pavement was the sea bed. I came up with this .PPT document - http://www.sln.org.uk/geography/Documents/animations/Limestone%20Pavements.ppt

As you can see, and HMcG would agree, this is now well above sea level. Directly behind where my brother is standing is this:

[lazs2]

beet said... "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't force it to drink."

nor can you make him stop flying around in polluting jets.

rolex... noooo... you didn't  answer me because you can't or.... won't.

What would you have us do?  What do we need to do?   What are the numbers?  How much of the problem is man made and how much would not having a single human on the planet affect the outcome?  

Which happens first, running out of oil or ruining the planet with burned up oil.

You are not suggesting that I have an oil leak and that I need to stop the car before the engine siezes..

You are suggesting that I never drive a car because a car can get an oil leak... every mechanic in the world will tell you that it is possibel for a car to get an oil leak.   They can't tell you when or how much effect one will have.... you may not even notice it...  It may just be that you lose a half a quart between changes.... maybe less..  

Until I see a puddle under the car I ain't gonna stop driving and pull the motor apart.

now, saying that asking for reasons and solutions is a "tantrum" is really rich coming from someone who is pretty much lying on his back and pounding his feet and hands on the floor while the tears roll out of his eyes...  You have no answers only....

Tantrums.

lazs

[beet1e]

Originally posted by lazs2
beet said... "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't force it to drink."

nor can you make him stop flying around in polluting jets.

LOL Lazs! That wasn't directed at you. My point was that even though we may have the technology to make great reductions in the burning of fossil fuels, it's unlikely to happen until push comes to shove. Only when the situation hits the public at large in the pocket will we see a change. As long as crude oil remains cheap enough for gas to be priced at $3/gallon, no-one will want to see a drive for nuclear power. Only when crude oil starts to run out and gets so expensive to extract that a gallon of gas passes the $10 mark will people get concerned, and all the opposition to nuclear plants will mysteriously evaporate...

And I haven't flown on a jet since last month.

[lazs2]

beet... why bother?   These "scientists" tell us that we will run out of oil in 20 years anyway so why not just use as much as we can so that a solution will be found all the more quickly?

If we conserve then all that will happen is that more third world countries will have time to develop and gain an appetite for oil.   If we save a million barrels of oil here a year and china develops to the point that it needs a million barrels a day....  what is the point?

What if they all wanted to travel?

lazs

[beet1e]

Originally posted by lazs2
If we conserve then all that will happen is that more third world countries will have time to develop and gain an appetite for oil.    

Too late - we're there already.

Save a million barrels a year? At the current rate of consumption, that would be enough to last the US about 50 minutes.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Angus

But that does not give any excuse for darting into the unknown with the banner reading "it happened before, so?"
 

On the reverse side of that, there is also no excuse to start experimenting with the earth to fix a problem that has not been proven  or at the very least so little understood.
Scientists get grants and funding to play around and experiment with things to see the outcome. In a lot of instances, even a high percentage, they do not get the results they were projecting they would get. In some cases they get nearly the exact opposite results they were predicting and shooting for. In most experiments, if it goes bad, they just say Ooooops and go back to square one. Experimenting with the earth and it`s natural cycles is not one of those cases.
Like I have said before, I believe global warming, even if it does exist, is way down on the list of things that can go wrong and probably will.
Willingly turning the fate of the entire world over to a few and blindingly believing that they have the worlds best interest as a top priority is more than a little stupid IMHO.
Every one and every organization, government, etc. has an agenda and a an angle to play. We are usualy the mark.
It has been said above that all of the scientists unanamously agree on this subject. That is stretching it a tad too far. The facts are quite the contrary.
One , in this discussion, is jumping up and down yelling that our prez has shown interest and making noises to the effect of getting onboard with the "Sky Is Falling For Lunch Bunch." As a rule this person wouldn`t have anything good to say, right or wrong, about Georgie if he invented a machine to make gold bars fall out of the sky on his lawn.
Ever wonder what`s going on with this?
I suppose , by this time in the thread, most have read about the meeting in our country with our fearless leader and the TV meteoroligists from around the country. The purpose of the meeting was to get them to publicly support the global warming theory and to put it up front in the public eye. The meteoroligists refused to do so. You don`t wonder why this is so? Do you drop the soap often?

[Angus]

Ehh:
"On the reverse side of that, there is also no excuse to start experimenting with the earth to fix a problem that has not been proven or at the very least so little understood."

The problem seems to be a fact.
It was predicted to happen and seems to work.
So?

[indy007]

Originally posted by Angus
The problem seems to be a fact.
It was predicted to happen and seems to work.
So?

Something can't "seem" to be fact. It is either correct, or it's incorrect. If it's partially correct, then it's also partially incorrect. 8 pages so far and the only fact proven is that everything posted so far can be easily disproven