Global Warming SOLAR-made not MAN-made

[Chalenge]

You cant reduce carbon emissions unless you stop using technology altogether. Ever since man made the first fire (and there was certainly fire before man) we have emitted carbon. But if you added up all the carbon emissions man has caused in all of his history it all doesnt reach the level of even a single volcanic eruption.

This is nonsense to argue about and the politicians love it because it distracts from real issues people need to be concerned about like the people losing even more power to congress.

[Angus]

I think that pollution is a term clear enough. No need to debate that there is no pollution because of the term, any more than debating that the Arctic areas cannot be melting because Wikipedia isn't reliable enough.
One can of course go and see things with the naked eye.....comes as a shock to many that got thrown off by maneuvers like that one.

BTW, since you mentioned what is added to crops, you just entered my field.
Nitrate, yes, but you need to balance it with phosphate and Kalium (Potassium). N-P-K.
Nitrate will enhance growth, which will, by the way, tie up charbon. After all, the valuable part in plant tissue is C.
You will need more N if there is much C in the ground, since they hook up.
With organic growing however, that is not so marked. But since you still need N, you need to grow N-binding plants to make the N or you. (Alfa-Alfa, Clover, Peas, etc). Brilliant. You use the sun's energy to harness both N and C out of the atmosphere through plants.
And then on to pollution...
If you grow up with it and know little else...then what? It's normal.
If you don't, and later go and see it every now and then, it's a shock!
Drive to a city of millions, and you will see the sphere of polluted air way before you spot the buildings. Depending of landscape of course.
You will have no visibility compared to relatively clean air.
I have seen a coastline from some 200 miles. Try that in LA.
And other pollution? Try drinkable water to undrinkable for instance. very many man-made examples I''m afraid...

[Angus]

LOL, yeah. Even a horse-pulled plow IS technology. Would be good to have a definition here, for a lot of technology is actually both pollution reducing AND energy saving.
Did you get the word mixed up with the term "cheap consumption" perhaps?

[Chalenge]

Even the ocean emits more carbon-dioxide than man. No I think even cave men would understand what I meant by technology. Thanks for making it clear where you stand.

[E25280]

Originally posted by Angus
It is closely following Britannica FYI, and that one came as a shock to many.

Not really.  There is A LOT out there about the whole Wiki vs Brit debate.  I am far too lazy to drag them all out -- do a search.  Bottom line, the so-called "study" that found comparable accuracy was flawed to say the least.

Here is one article that gives a bit of an overview not only of Britannica's response, but Nature's response to the response (which is almost as flawed as their original study).

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2006-03-30-nature-britannica_x.htm

Britannica claimed that Nature had sent reviewers an excerpt instead of a full article — and then published the reviewer's comment that the "article" was incomplete.

Nature's response: "In a small number of cases, to ensure comparable lengths, we provided reviewers with chosen excerpts, not full articles; this was done with entries from both Encyclopaedia Britannica and Wikipedia."

Wait wait wait. The article was supposed to compare the quality and accuracy of the two encyclopedias, but they cut some articles "to ensure comparable lengths"? That's like comparing a Ford Escort to a Corvette but first pulling out half the 'Vette's spark plugs "to ensure comparable cylinders." You can't cripple a competitor and then fault it for being crippled!

Onward. Britannica claimed that some of Nature's reviewers counted as errors things that were not, in fact, incorrect. This added to Britannica's error count, and the encyclopedia folks said Nature should have checked. Makes sense to me.

Nature's response: "Britannica objects that Nature did not check the assertions of its reviewers. This is true; nor did we claim to. We realized that in some cases our reviewers' criticisms would be open to debate, and in some cases might be wrong."

Yikes! So Nature published an article based on information that it knew "in some cases might be wrong"? Because the editors didn't want to check?

Look, if you're going to publish an article saying there are errors of fact in an encyclopedia, you'd darn well better check your facts. Saying "we knew the author might be wrong" doesn't cut it.

[McFarland]

It is clear that global warming is occuring. It is clear that man affects the planet, even on the large scale. The ice caps are beginning to melt, it is true. Glaciers are retreating. The Earth's overall temperature has begun to rise. Ocean temperatures have risen. The occurance of large storms has risen. Lazs, you can't deny all these things that are staring you dead in the face. But, then you don't try to deny it, you try to pin the blame on Nature. Well, sure, Nature does have cycles of warming and cooling, but this time is different. It's warming faster than before. In the last 74 years, it has become much warmer. My papaws talk of snows when they were kids, and in their teens. Not anymore. We're lucky to have freezing weather in the winters nowadays. Sure, we had a good winter this year, but that's out of 15 years without hardly one. And when someone says,

Not is a panic that breeds things like a DDT ban or a MTBE in the gasoline not a panic that kills millions and poisons our water.

It sounds like you're saying it was wrong to ban DDT. Have you researched what it caused? It affected many species, and not just pests. The birds of prey accumulated it in their systems from eating things that had eaten it or insects containing it, and it caused their eggshells to be so thin that they couldn't rear young. It caused many species to become endangered, including the national symbol, the bald eagle. Something with effects like that should be banned. A person who says it shouldn't have been banned, whether they beleive the evidence or not, just has no accountability in my book. As for the global warming, at this point, I don't think there's much we can do. It is predicted in the Bible that it will occur, as well as many other things that are happening.

[AKIron]

Dunno about other truths but what’s commonly accepted as truth is that there have been global temperature fluctuations exceeding what is predicted in the foreseeable future by the global warming alarmists. Weather (very poor pun) or not this was due to some sentient beings influence millennia ago is beyond the scope of this post.

[Angus]

I recall  a comparison between Wiki and Britannica. Britannica was in the lead, just not by much.
Anyway, when it boils down to this:
"All this brought up the big question: Can you trust an encyclopedia anyone can edit?"
That applies to both camps in the warming debate. Not just one.
Anyway, the links I brought were more of general referrence, like Ice age etc. Many if not most items included are not being debated at all. And then of course, you have the links to the sources.
As for the polar caps melting, that is now pretty well established. Both north and south, as well as MOST glaciers in the world. Tibet, Iceland, Switzerland, just name it.
In our Icelandic case 10 out of the 12 biggest ones are retreating. All of the very biggest ones I belive.
And then to the ocean temps...it's a measured issue. Since the annual swings are much less than in the atmosphere (that is naturally a physics issue) some thing like only one degree weights a lot more.
Water mass: You learned that is school yes?
Atmospheric pressure: That one as well?
Ice mass as a total: calculated but with quite some accuracy due to sonar technology and "silly things" as drilling and mapping things.
And if that's not enough, go and see for yourself...

[Angus]

Originally posted by Chalenge
Even the ocean emits more carbon-dioxide than man. No I think even cave men would understand what I meant by technology. Thanks for making it clear where you stand.

Thanks for explaining

And McFarland: This time I agree with you.
On this as well:
"It sounds like you're saying it was wrong to ban DDT. Have you researched what it caused?"
This was an issue in my agricultural college at the time.
DDT didn't really cause havoc amongst us people, but it did lots of things in the nature. The cause for WHY it didn't wreak havoc amongst humans, is because it was banned early enough. None the less, every human being is born with some DDT in the body.

[Excel1]

Originally posted by Angus
Call it a hysteria, the visit the north pole, then Greenland, then the Ross shelv.
Do a little study....

the ross ice shelf belongs to nz and the sooner all the ice there melts the better... it'll be easier to drill for the oil without it

btw, it's the political con of the century so far but are you buying into that " a country can become carbon neutral" crap?

[Angus]

Haven't really looked into it, but I remain a sceptic about it, yes.

[Angus]

Oh, in the Northern hemisphere, some possible oil fields are getting accessible because of the retreat of ice.
But talking of "better", all that melting will raise SL. Not the N-Pole of course, just the landbound ice, Greenland and Antarctica.
Anyway, I mentioned those areas, because the melting is very visible.

[Fishu]

Originally posted by McFarland
As for the global warming, at this point, I don't think there's much we can do. It is predicted in the Bible that it will occur, as well as many other things that are happening.

Yes we can. We can ban the bible and replace it with a book with more positive content. Perhaps a buddhist bible would do more right than wrong. If not, we can write a new book.

[Excel1]

i know your sensible, but i just had to ask. i don't know how the politicians can advocate something as ludicrous and as airy-fairy and non specific  like carbon neutrality, and at the same time lie straight in their beds at night. i guess if there's political mileage in it for them they will gamble on the old adage that if the lie is big enough people will believe it. it sucks to be a sucker but there's plenty of them it seems

and actually i don’t think antartica is on our short list for exploration just yet,
although with exonmobil about to move in to the great south basin to do exploratory work the rigs will probably be moving in that direction some day

[Angus]

Yeah, I think the next in the spotlight is somewhere outside Canada.
As for the carbon neutrality, my first thought on it was that it's buyng peace. Not every nation is in on it, and those who are going to be listed as the "environmental pigs" are countries producing cheap goods for those that go "neutral". Your thought on that?