June 26th, 2006, 10:30 AM
I'm in year 9 at school, and in science i have to do a case study, that will go towards 25% of one of my science GCSEs, and for my case study I am researching about global warming, and I would like to put this discussion into my case study, so, I would like you to please tell me your thoughts on global warming, whether you think it's too late to do anything about it, what we could do to stop it, if you think global warming will end the human race etc. thanks
We have the capacity to greatly reduce the impact of global warming, even if a substantial portion of the warming is systemic and not the result of man's generation of greenhouse gases.
We lack the political will to take the necessary steps. We lack the political structure to take the necessary steps. We lack the political vision to recognise the two former points.
Global warming will dramatically change the planetary environment. Combine this with deforestation, destruction of biodeiversity and desertification, and the planet in two hundred years time, will be barely recognisable to someone from this era.
It is to be hoped that some preventitive steps are taken before the temperature reaches a point where methane hydrates on the ocean floor destabilise and trigger a massive temperature rise that melts the Antarctic Ice sheets and raises sea levels by 100m +/-.
My principal concern is that the impacts of the changes that will occur will be sufficiently severe to divert resources from continued exploration of space. Man's future is out there, not on this planet, which millenia or tow from now should be one large nature reserve. We may only have this single shot at it. Intransigent stupidity on the part humanity in ignoring global warming may forever compromise our ability to achieve the permanent leap into space.
Since I should be dead within ten or fifteeen years I leave the problem to you and your peers to solve. Please do your best.
There's a movie out on this subject "An Inconvenient Truth".
My friend saw it and really liked it. I'll go see it this week and wont comment until I see it for myself. If you have a chance to see it it might give you interesting leads about which you can then seach by yourself.
I'v seen the movie, its interesting to see images, there a bit of fluff but its very good overall and worth seeing.
Heres a link you might find useful:
http://www.climatecrisiscoalition.org/
"Man's future is out there"
I agree humans should not have all their eggs in the same basket.
July 4th, 2006, 12:22 AM
Hey there. You might find some useful information on my blog, at a specific post.
my blog here
There's a link to a research paper I wrote for a government class. You are free to read and use information from it, but PLEASE CITE CORRECTLY AND DO NOT PLAGIARIZE!! From the beginning of the post you will see I stayed up til 3 and woke up early, still, to complete the paper. =) Please don't let it be for nothing. Anyways, after reading, I'm sure you'll know my position on global warming pretty well. Good luck on your assignment.
-kerry
global warming is nothing but bullshit.
its natural with increased temperature and decreased temperature and what we humans do is just like peeing in to the ocean and then measure how much the water level changed.
Bingo.Originally Posted by Zelos
Or at the very least, it's based heavily on environmental alarmism/sensationalism.
And "An Inconvenient Truth" is Al Gore's attempt at rounding up the environmental nutjob votes for the 2008 election. I doubt even he believes most of it.....well, he DID invent the Internet, so maybe I'm wrong.
The Real inconvenient truth
Point 1: Global warming is an absolute reality.
Point 2: The ability of human activities to effect the planet is now massive. A significant proportion of the actual and predicted global warming is realted to human activities.
Point 3: The consequences of ignoring this are at best severe, and at worst catastrophic.
Point 4: I consider those who choose to ignore the issues through willfull ignorance to be more dangerous by at least two orders of magnitude than terrorists who fly into buildings.
Point 5: I hope I haven't offended anyone, but that's often the price of being right. 8)
Some people will not face the evidence until it hits them in the face. There are people here on this forum who deny the impact of humans on global warming. They deny that the hundreds of tons of pollutants could have a negative impact on the environment. Perhaps they litter as well, and assume that their litter will be decomposed and absorbed into the earth so quickly that no one will mind their lack of concern for the environment. After all, if we close our eyes, then a little litter here and there does not add up to a lot of litter, and a little pollution here or there does not add up to a lot of pollution, and a little killing of the lakes and waterways does not add up to a lack of clean waterways. For many people, denial is easier than facing the truth. I recommend that we all reread point 4 above.
Agreed.Point 1: Global warming is an absolute reality.
I tend to regard sentiments such as this as highly speculative. To keep the discussion in the most readable terms possible, I'll offer three questions.Point 2: The ability of human activities to effect the planet is now massive. A significant proportion of the actual and predicted global warming is realted to human activities.
1. How does one calculate earth's mean temperature or the carrying capacity of earth's ecosystem on the whole?
2. What is earth's "natural" state? How does one define this?
3. Is the sun in some sort of steady state?
The consequences of sensationalism and environmental alarmism do uncountable damage to business and lives in the world today. If you're right, and it's certainly in the realm of possibilities, then my comments are diminished considerably. I hope you're wrong (hopefully you do too).Point 3: The consequences of ignoring this are at best severe, and at worst catastrophic.
Really? Cause I consider those who attempt to trivialize or capitalize some conversational advantage using the events of September eleventh to be exactly, and ironically, two orders lower than slime mold.Point 4: I consider those who choose to ignore the issues through willfull ignorance to be more dangerous by at least two orders of magnitude than terrorists who fly into buildings.
No offense taken.Point 5: I hope I haven't offended anyone, but that's often the price of being right.
Thanks.
The real problem I have is not entirely based on data or information. Currently, environmental policy does very little to actually curtail any real or imagined issues surrounding global warming. Environmentalism has become a haven for, or better, been hijacked through, anti-US and anti-business special interest groups intent on remodeling my country back into a seventeenth century agrarian society.
If sensible and intuitive policies were actually in place that actually provide tangible results, then I have zero problems with protecting the ecosystem against global warming, whether I agree with the data or not.
This is not happening.
what we can do in thhis time on planet earth is basacly nothing. if we humans just disaphere for no reason it wouldnt take long before nature fixed it
Point A: I am not trivialising the events of September 11th.
Point B: 3000 people died on September 11th.
Point C: More than that number of people are dying on a daily basis as a consequence of the desertification associated with global warming.
Point C: I accept that the daily dead do not travel to work by subway, or wear nice clothes.
Point D: Despite this, I still think they are humans beings.
Point E: I rate slime moulds quite highly.
Another moral relativist. Great.Point C: I accept that the daily dead do not travel to work by subway, or wear nice clothes.
Point D: Despite this, I still think they are humans beings.
(sorry for the long post and for the rant)
I would suggest for people to see 'An inconvienent truth', and then state which part of the data, which photograph or which conclusion is wrong and express on what evidence, data, concept or feeling their disagrement is based on. If you disagree in advance, see it with an open mind, it will help you understand why other people think differently on this subject. :wink:
Change is natural.
Thats true, the moon is moveing away from earth each year, days are getting longer(earth's rotation is slowing down), continents are moving, massive asteroids have smashed the earth many times.
However, the activity of lifeforms has shown the ability to transform climats, environments and the very atmosphere we breath. Prior to the activity of life, the earth's atmosphere was not breathable for humans. Its a great thing the air composition has changed, but it shows that life forms can and do have an effect on a planetary scale and that todays condition which are favorable to human life could change to an atmosphere in which humans cannot live or have a hard time. Changes also cost a lot of money, the cost of switching to non GHG economy is a bagatelle compared to the costs of global warming.
I appreaciate you point of view, my point of view is exactly the opposite. From my point of view, global warming which could cause millions of dead(huricanes, floods, drought, famine) all over the planet is being trivialized, while 911 has been sensationalized and overdramatized to the extreme.The consequences of sensationalism and environmental alarmism
attempt to trivialize or capitalize some conversational advantage using the events of September eleventh
(If 10 people die on tv its a drama, if 10,000 people die without media coverage nobody give a sh@t.)
911 was horrible, tragic, painful and sad. The entire world rallied to the side of the US. 3000 people died on 911 in an extreme non stop media coverage.
I understand americans desire for blood and revenge, its human nature I'm no different, especially in the aftermath when emotion and trauma clouds your jugement, but at some point it time you have to get a grip.
If you put it in perspective:
Since 911 how many americans died in the US because of terrorism?
Yet, over 10,000 americans get shot and murdered by other americans each year(guestimate). Since 911 millions of americans died from cancer, and yet there are still cancer causing products sold in stores and used by an oblivious population(youre not likely to see that on CNN cause the companies that sell these products also pay for what you see on tv[ads]). Thousands of americans die each and evey year as a direct result of industrial pollution and toxic contamination (in fact about 20,000 canadians die from toxins that are mostly traced back to US plants. Its as if the US was using chemical weapons[wmd] on its on people and neighbors, killing not a few thousands but tens of thousands of people a year, but continued because the chemical weapon manufacturer makes profits and provides a few jobs). Again, since its not on TV and the people that profit from pollution are the ones editing EPA reports, people dont know and will live in denial if told.
How many americans died in Irak, nearly 3000, and you have to consider that all "contractors"(mercenaries) and non military personel killed are not included in the official number. I'wont go into how many Iraqis died since the war but you know its many times more than 911(people that had nothing to do with 911).
911 has also been used to strip away your liberties, has placed the US in an irrational fear mass psychosis causing a blind unquestionning patriotic zeal which is quite scary (in a geistapo facist police state bent on war sort of way).
If anyone has "capitalized" on 911 its Halliburton and other military complex corporations that have used it as an excuse to unleash a nation into war and to rip-off from the treasury the billions you will probalby be paying for the rest of you life (and may contribute in a small way to bring the invicible US economy crashing down, which although would cause a Schadenfreude around the world for about 1 minute, would also cause world wide hardships with the global economy). And by the way, not only was the war on Irak on the drawing board before 911, and not only were there no links whatsoever between 911 and Sadam(thats according to CIA btw), but when the CIA had a chance to capture Ben Ladin in Afghanistan, the Pentagone ignored their plea for military assistanceand went on preparing for Iraq. Their objective, removing Taliban for a Unocal pipeline was achieved, now they were heading for Oil fields and new bases of operation in the Gulf and didnt stop for the apparently decoy reason to go to Afghanistan; ben laden*).
Sorry for the rant. I wont consider you a slime or even a bad person, simply a person who has had different information, life experience and opposing view.
* this episode has contributed to the beleif some have that the US never actually wanted to capture Ben laden, I think its a bit far fetched, though it looks like the CIA actually wants him while the Pentagone appears to see him as a usefull fear mongering tool.
You [insult deleted]
You have zero perspective on what 9/11 means to me and my country. Somehow you try to morally equate death throughout the country and around the world with what happened in New York and Washington.
The War on Terrorism is the aftermath, one does not have to agree with it to still hurt from 9/11, especially those who lost loved ones, like me.
My pain gives NO value to your perspective.
Many, many people have capitalized of this tragedy. Tours and other activites are daily events at ground zero. Absolutely disgusting.
You equate those lost lives with Iraq, Afgansitan, Bin Laden, the Bush Administration or the Military Industrial Complex, as if that gives you some sort of insider "perspective."
[insult deleted]
Obviously you don't live in the USA. And for that, my countrymen and I are enternally grateful.
BTW, learn how to spell Iraq.
[insult deleted]
[You have been warned. DO NOT use such insults to other members. Find yourself another forum if you cannot abide by this. -SkinWalker]
You seem to have lost someone in 9/11. That is a shame. However, your self-pity and your resulting claim to be morally superior is pitiful. Your claim that somehow you know what the entire country is feeling is incorrect. When you insult people for having opinions that differ with your clearly biased opinions, you are disgusting. Go have a good cry and try to get over it. Then come back.
icewendigo, There is no way I'm getting into a discussion about how YOU feel about 9/11, or whether you think I have a diluted perspective about it.
We will have to agree to disagree there.
And while Dingus's comments are harsh, they're not exactly wrong. I understand the anger, and the pain, and I will throw out a heartfelt regret for his/her loss.
Iraq is a joke.
The war on terrorism is a joke, and virtually a bottomless money pit.
But that doesn't mean that 9/11 is any less significant to the lives of the American People.
And I find statements like this to be almost baseless. There are millions dying from natural disatster NOW! Like many sensationalists will lead you to believe, every current and future natural disaster is attributed to Global Warming. The doom-and-gloom is very, very thick.From my point of view, global warming which could cause millions of dead(huricanes, floods, drought, famine) all over the planet is being trivialized,
More hurricanes?
Global Warming.
Frequent earthquakes?
Global Warming
Floods in the plains?
Global Warming
Desertification?
Global Warming
Starvation?
Global Warming
Jury Duty?
Global warming
Alarmism only leads to unsound, illogical environmental policy....EVERYTIME!
Nearly every generation is full of those who must cause fear.
Talking about war and enviromental destruction for many a long year.
I'll live it, and feel it and think it, and breathe it, I'll stand on the mountain so all souls can see it, I'll stand on the water until I start sinking, and I'll die in my footsteps before I go underground.
Yes I believe humans are greatly effecting global warming. I'm sure my reasons have already been expressed on how by someone else.
It's never to late to fix a problem.
Dingus, I feel sorry for you.
I wont take your compelling perspective "You insignificant twit", "You're trash" and "Ass" personally, afterall you are visibly from the US* so statements like these are not even surprising :P . [teasing]
(*imporatant nuance, only a part of the US fosters the fine international reputation it currently enjoys, so I have nothing against americans in general
)
Iraq, noted thanks :? I'll try to remember but cant make promises. :wink:
CaveatLector
I also agree to disagree. :wink:
Baseless? (The whole world and Nasa, except three countries[one of which funds nasa] are all wrong. Is it some kind of gigantic conspiracy? :-D I like conspiracy theories as much as anybody but...
It seems apparent that you have not seen the movie 'an inconvenient truth', or you would not simply use the 'baseless' argument. Consider seeing it, your comments against its premise will be better.
I've read Huricanes are powered by heat, as ocean temperatures rise...(Huricanes cause billions in damage a year and kill a few people I'm told)
Higher air temperature causes rainclouds to discharge rain more rapidly (If Im wrong I'll glady read the explanation according to which the effect of higher temperature is different) causing floods in some regions and more droughts in other regions (no more rain reaching the region and too dry and hot for moisture to accumulate in the soil*, again in some regions).
Trivia: Apparently, for a period of time, the mediteranean "sea" was a "desert" basin, even though water streams reached into it, because water evaporated faster than was reaching the basin. It took an enventual breach in the atlantic oceans edge to fill the sea through a gigantic waterfall (many kilometers wide near Gibraltar).
Althought I cant speak from personal experience, I also hear people die when floods and droughts(famine) occur. This might not be as much of a problem in some countries with the infrastructure to cope., but the likelyhood that it will mainly affect people from other countries does not lessen its undesirebility (to me anyway).
Of course all of these are already occuring naturally, but a higher frequency and intesity would be unfortunate. I dont think current disaters are mainly related to GW, but if you're wrong there could be a lot more.
I agree that sensationalism sells and fear sells, so there migh be some of that, and disater prophecies are a dime a dozen(Y2K), but this one to me is different.
As stated, I will probably not see the most severe of these negative effects, Im fortunate, but I tell you I have already seen the rise in seasonal temperatures. I guess the rise in temperature is apparently more visible the closer you live to the poles, but sooner or later it will reach further towards the equator.
Jury Duty?
Global warming
2nd law of Forumdynamics:
The total amount of flamming in each post in any isolated forum tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value. This value is often refered to as "Forumtropy"
July 20th, 2006, 05:35 PM
I've enjoyed reading the posts on this discussion, but I'd like to point out that this topic (not just in this forum) tends to be polarized--either people believe it wholeheartedly or not at all. But, there is a lot of grey area between the extremes.
We know that the earth is heating up, but how much? We know that some are using climate change as a political forum, but is everyone? We also know that glaciers are melting, but is ice melting all around the world? And where are all the hurricanes that were predicted to pummel the east coast this year? The answers may surprise you.
I've spent the last year researching these and other topics centering around the controversy of climate change, and have found some interesting answers. I've written a book on the subject that will be available in September titled "Is it Hot in Here?". The book's web site, along with recent articles/blogs concerning the polarization of global warming is at:
www.GreenhouseTruth.com
Additionally, if there are an specific questions anyone may have on this subject, please feel free to give me a shout.
I must say, that despite my initial thought of "this guy's spamming his book," I found the table of contents intriguing. Will the book be available at brick & mortar stores like B&N or Walden's?
And, are you willing to contribute here in this thread, since you have some sources at your fingertips.
To your comment about polarization, I have to agree. But this seems to be the nature of the internet (you're either with me or against me).
Personally, I think the evidence that climate is warming is clear and deniers of this do so to be contrary, have other agendas, are ignorant, etc.
However, I'm still very agnostic to the causes. I think a good case can be made that anthropogenic causes are likely or at least very possible, but I also have to agree that this may simply be the nature of our planet.
What *is* undeniable, is that the repercussions of global warming are going to be significant in terms of health care costs and civil engineering as well as agriculture.
Thanks for the kind words SkinWalker.
The book will first be available through online retailers like BarnesAndNoble.com, Amazon.com, etc. A few other smaller stores like WetSand will be selling it as well. The availability will likely be around the 1st to 2nd week of September. After that, we'll be working on the bigger brick and mortars.
I agree with your comments as well concerning anthropogenic influences on the climate--Plankes law and thermodynamic physics agree with it as well. Yet, as you say, staying "agnostic" on the causes is rare to find these days, but is necessary to keep science scientific.
For instance, take Brokaw's report on the Discovery Channel--a special that ran last Sunday. While this polarized to the sky-is-falling crowd, there were severe rebutals, including those in high places, such as this link below:
BROKAW’S OBJECTIVITY COMPROMISED IN GLOBAL WARMING SPECIAL
Interestingly enough, the Senate Committee office that wrote that rebutal is run by Senator James Inhofe, who I mention in chapter 4 of my book as an ardent skeptic of global warming. While he makes some good points, we get an extreme view with the polarization thrown the other way from Brokaw's report.
This causes a tug of war, and makes for "my-team" mentalities. What lies in between these extremes tells us what is really going on, and that perhaps, even though human-induced global warming is a reality, perhaps there's a softer landing than that proposed by Gore, Brokaw, and others who, although proceeding in altruistic fashion with good intentions, are pulling the viewpoints of the people further and further apart.
btw: another hot topic came in as of late blaming the recent heat wave in the U.S. on global warming. While there is some truth behind the headlines, I've broken it down further in a new article I posted here
Dingus said this in an earlier post, referring to the World Trade Center:
Dingus..."Many, many people have capitalized of this tragedy. Tours and other activites are daily events at ground zero. Absolutely disgusting."
Ever been to these places?
Ford's Theatre, Wash. DC
Arizona Memorial, Pearl Harbor
Gettysburg National Monument
Tomb of the Unknown Soldier
etc.
They all have their vendors and hawkers of trinkets.
Ground Zero at the former Trade Center is only ONE of many places Americans memorialize their war dead. Most people come to pay their respects in one way or another. If the Ground Zero memorial did not exist, people would wonder why and demand it be constructed.
Now, back to the Global Warming issue...
Oh, I don't need verification from scientists (although it helps) that global warming is real in MY neighborhood. Take a look around where YOU live, especially those of you who have lived in the same place for a long time. I have been living near Seattle since 1966.
When I was a kid, it would snow about 12-14 inches at least three times every winter. In the mountains, the snow would pile up and the reservoirs would fill every spring.
Now...we break heat records like people change their socks. The snowpack in the mountains falls almost every year. Mount Rainier shows bare rock to the summit in August. In the winter, we're lucky if it snows more than a couple of inches once a year. Just rains all the time in winter, now.
I don't need a scientist to tell me something's wrong.
NOAA just announced that for the U.S., the first six months of 2006 have been the hottest since 1895. Global warming? The real causes? The final end results? Who knows... It's definitely getting hotter in my neighborhood, though. That's all I know.
You know, one thing the scientists missed until recently was this:
They thought global warming would increase at a more or less steady rate. Now, many believe they were initially mistaken. The changes we are seeing are happening exponentially. It's kind of like picturing a tiny circle in the air...and then imagining the circle is growing. As the circle expands, it also gets larger at an increasing rate. It's the same with the GW problem.
Think it is bad now? Wait five or ten years, then you can REALLY start sweating... literally. 8)
Robert mentioned:
"They thought global warming would increase at a more or less steady rate. Now, many believe they were initially mistaken."
Who are "they"? (IPCC, National Acadamies, etc.?) and who are the "many"? Of the "many" who are showing proof of the exponential increase?
Not to be a downer, but to keep science scientific, references would help some of us to better separate facts from figments. Additionally, is there anything written on the "exponential" impact of global warming or that the cycle has become exponential, and to what degree? References to this would be interesting to discuss as well.
I got that reference from the National Geographic. They were one of the first organizations to do hard investigation. It's difficult to keep track, there are so many people speaking out on the GW subject.
I say to people...don't take my word. Just look around where you live. 8)
It doesn't take a scientist to figure out something is wrong, sometimes.
Regular people often see things more clearly, especially when enough of them take notice and speak out...
If you'd like to have your say about it in print, visit 'A Thousand Voices - A Testament on Global Warming.' www.discountebooks.net/globalwarmingproject.htm
This is the place where you can become part of the solution. This book is being published in paperback, hardback, and Ebook next spring. 8)
Having finished my Ph.D. just around the time the GW debate was heating up (1999). I had read something from MIT Atmospheric Sciencis department that made me so angry. It read "Global warming is not happening". Immediately afterward MIT got millions of dollars in grants and DoD contracts.....
You really want to know the cause of global warming? Its money......
YES!!! It seems all global and local health issues these days (mostly in USA) are money based. Oops did I say that out loud...
Global warming is a real issue though. Unless you think this is some ginormous (<--- that is a wrod) placebo that we project onto O-zone somehow (not a bad idea).
I'm no scientists, so what I have to say will most likely not (in no way whatsoever) hold any water.
I agree with the people who think Global Warming is too hiped up. The Earth is getting hotter (yeah, of course, I'm sweating my b*lls off just to type this), and the deserts are getting larger, the oceans higher, but oh well. I see no reason to think of humans as the main cause. I feel that thinking we are the cause of this trouble is a rather self-centred thing to do... almost puting ourselves up on a pedestal to make us look more powerful/important... but I'm pretty sure we're not.
A couple of things I'd like to point out and perhaps offer as discussion:
1) In his book, Underworld, the Mysterious Origins of Civilization, Graham Hancock writes:
If at the coldest time in Earth's temperature fluxuation the ocean-level was -165 metres what it is in between fluxuations, i.e., it's final balance, then I see no reason to be surprised that at the Earth's warmest moments in its fluxuation (which we are entering) the sea-level should rise to +165 metres.Since a layer of water 165 metres deep was taken out of the oceans to begin with to make up the ice-caps, it follows that a layer of water 165 metres deep is returned to the oceans with the complete melting of the ice-sheets.
...
Measured at a warm point in a long interglacial, and after 17,000 years of isostatic subsidence, today's sea-level is probably quite close to the final balance in the equation of rising seas and sinking sea beds.
(Hancock 61-62)
2) Rebecca L. Johnson in The Greenhouse Effect, Life on a Warmer Planet says that Arctic ice-cap melting will have no effect on sea-levels because:
Arctic ice is all floating ice that displaces... as much water as it contains in frozen form.
(Johnson 62)
I hope this will add to the discussion, and help you with your research paper at the same time.
Jon
if the water on northpool melts water levels wont rise
Very little in Hancock's books can be considered as scholarly discourse. The majority of his "information" is comprised of out-of-context quotes mined from legitimate sources that are used to further his overall speculations, which usually include a greatly exaggerated antiquity of man and ancient super-civilizations. Much of both Underworld and Fingerprints have each been thoroughly debunked.
Having said that, it true that much of the world's water is locked up in ice and some of it is floating. That which is floating is already displacing the seas, so its melting will have no effect on sea level. However, a large quantity of the earth's ice *is* frozen on land in Greenland and Antarctica as well as the mountain Glaciers of the Alps, Andes, Himalayas, etc. This melting ice will affect sea levels.
I know this, yes, but that says nothing of whether or not he is correct on the point I made (that the sea-level was -165 m at the coldest point), and that because of this point, it's likely (and natural) that the Earth's oceans should rise to +165 m in the warmest points. It doesn't matter how much of Hancock's book you debunk; until you can say something to the specific point made here, his evidence stands as good as that of any other scientist through any other scientific research.
But, I have a question for the people who think Global Warming is brought on by humans: do you ever think it will stop? I mean, do you feel it possible that the planet will just keep getting hotter and hotter and hotter? Clearly, it must end somewhere, right?
Jon
Sea level variation will undoubtedly had a disitnct effect upon the development of humankind. (Note I said development, not evolution.) There will doubtless be many dramatic discoveries made as we increase our exploration of shallow shelfs that would have been exposed at the height of the ice ages.
Please note that Hancock is not a scientist. He is a journalist. This does not make him wrong, but it decidedly does not make him right. (Though it does make him write.)
Anyone who does science is a scientist. And besides, it's not only scientists who can be right about scientific things. So far, I've presented my evidence on why sea-level rise shouldn't be regarded as unnatural; I think it's time for you to present yours.
Simply, I've never seen any evidence that shows Global Warming to be anything more than a natural period of warmness on Earth, which will be followed by a natural period of cold, and warm, and cold...
Jon
Agreed. However, Hancock does not do science. He does not employ the scientific method. He does not submit his hypotheses for peer review.
He is a fluent writer who knows how to appeal to public. He is in the entertainment business. Nothing wrong with that.
I don't think I ever said anything to the contrary, did I?
If you haven't seen the evidence then you have not been looking very hard. I suggest you read any or all of the reports by the ICCC. Please come back when you have done so and refute any specific point contained therein.
Just pop up the link, and I'll be happy to take a look
Jon
P.S. I hope they aren't too long.
Excuse me screwing up my acronyms. It is of course the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), not Intergovernmental Committee on Climate Change (ICCC).
Here is the home page with links to lots of nice reports. And yes, they are long. A matter of this weight is not dealt with in a couple of pages.
http://www.ipcc.ch/
Please remember that these are summaries of the research (in some cases summaries of the summaries). To be properly convinced you may need to seek out the original papers.
No kidding. I suggeest to start by seeing 'an inconveniant truth', the movie may be inconveniant for people who dislike Gore but its worth watching nonetheless.Jon wrote:
Simply, I've never seen any evidence that shows Global Warming to be anything more than a natural period of warmness on Earth, which will be followed by a natural period of cold, and warm, and cold...
If you haven't seen the evidence then you have not been looking very hard.
If someone has actually studied meteorology, I would like to know if warmer weather can cause more violent regular storm. I live in an area that is getting warmer in recent years, (we are not coastal nor theathened by hurricanes) and this summer there has been storms the like of which I have never seen(wind velocity). I think it may be a coincidence but if someone knows otherwise and why let me know.
It's NOT a coincidence... 8)
Global warming is real. If you want to say something about it, just go here:
http://www.discountebooks.net/globalwarmingproject.htm
This one is coming out in paperback and hardback. Have your say... 8)
Let's not try to boil this down to a political issue, and don't try to assume my political standing just because I don't think Global Warming is human-caused (not that I'm accusing you of doing that). Actually, I think trying to protect the environment is a good thing. I try to do my part here and there when it isn't too much work and isn't too much money. I just don't think humans have as big a hand in Global Warming as some would have us believe.
Oh, and I don't know if I'm a Gore supporter or not, but I sure as Hell am not a Bush supporter
Jon
August 9th, 2006, 04:36 AM
Personally I don't find the Global Warming is such a big problem. If you look in a table you'll see that the earth has known even higher temperatures then we have know while there weren't humans. High temperatures aren't abnormal. There is even some kind of system in it. If you look at the temparatures you'll see that the iceages in europe have a kind of repeat in them. And every iceage has a pre-period wich is a verry warm period with high temperatures. Those test and temperatures I talk about are al from a Dutch book we used at school.
Do you realize the impact on weather, populations and food production global warming is likely to have regardless of whether it has been so in the past and even if only a small part of it is man made(the straw that broke the camel's back)?Personally I don't find the Global Warming is such a big problem.
If the earth's atmosphere reverted to the natural state it was in before life appeared on earth human would all die, because that natural atmosphere contained very little oxygen. It would not be a problem for anerobic bacterias but for humans it would indeed be a problem. This is an extreme example but it goes to show that a natural environment from the past can be a problem to modern humans living in various parts of the world.
Global warming could create desert conditions where current agricultural lands are, it could increase instances of flash floods and droughts both of which are a problem. It could mean some regions would starve, while others would face high food prices and high amounts of refugees(which may cause friction since there's only so much a society can absorb effectively at a time without generating problems of integration)
I dont think its too late to do anything about it and it may wake up some people to the notion that until other worlds are colonized all humans are in the same basket.
What can be done, lower greenhouse emission so at least humans dont add causes on top of natural processes.
THere is no silver bulet I know of but many endevors that can be part of the solution, like Electric cars for example (see the movie "Who killed the Electric Car?" or reports about it). Increase the ratio of power generated with wind, hydro, solar and tide/wave power plants, increase home production of energy (solar panels), reduce needless consumption of energy, use geothermal to heat/cool houses, introduce taxes to reflect the real cost of poluters (and use these revenues to clean up the mess the poluter is dumping on the rest of us).
IMO Global warming is unlikely to end the human race but may cause various problems for human populations as mentioned above.
Until Jon can post a link detailing his side of the issue, I suggest seeing the movie 'An Inconvenient Truth' or checking out the following web site http://www.climatecrisis.net/
in millions of years earth will be hot enough to have no ice on the poles, not by humans but by nature itself
In millions of years the earth will probably have no magnetic field to protect it from the expansion of the Sun which will obliterate the atmosphere and melt everything on the surface of the earth, which is why in the long run we need to expand to other planets.
(but it doe not justify wrecking the planet sooner than it would otherwise be nor make the consequences of Global warming less of an issue)
That is what I mean with: "not that big a problem". It's not that I don't take it serious and I do think that we might want to be careful but Global Warming just issn't al caused by humans. If the humans wouldn't have been there it would have even been worse: forest would have burned totaly to the ground.(if caused by heat or an other non human cause)
ALso the problem of the melting of the poles: What's the big problem? So the waterlevel is going to be a little higher, we can live with that. It's pitty for the animals that live there, but hé, that's nature. Enviromental changes are natural and so is the extinguish of a specie? (I do love animals, realy 8) )
It's not just animals that would be affected. A lot of human populations live in coastal cities and areas barely above at sea levels. Global warming could mean a double whamy, higher sea levels and more violent storms/hurricanes/typhons. This means that some areas where people currently live could be flooded and wiped out and for other cities it means the construction of levies would be required and the likelyhood of massive floods when a hurricane comes is that much more intense whith higher sea levels. The death toll from floods, displacement of populations with refugee camps and illegal immigration as well as the loss of property in the billions, to me is a problem. Also many regions depend on glaciers to provide drinking water, the glacier acts as a reservoir, but as glaciers disapear these regions will find themselves without drinking water. Farmers whose livelyhood depend on the weather, could find themselves in an arid desertlike land, they could go bankrupt while food could go scarce and more expensive. The ramifications and overlooked consequences are many.
The trees you mention produce carbon emmission when they burn, by razing vast expanses of forests humans prevent forest fire (since no more trees), but dont forget that when the forest grows back it uses carbon gas to constitute the new trees (I think).
your right, of course you are, and it wasn't verry smart of me to say it isn't a big issue.
How much higher the temperates feel, to you, isn't really important - some ecosystems are very temperature sensitive and it's hard to even calculate the damage that temperate shifts will create. Whether it feels much hotter to you or not. A couple degrees colder and a lot of plants in the tropical regions die. A couple degrees hotter and enough ice melts to affect salinity in some locations, filled with life that is extremely sensitive to salinity. And the damage done to those ecosystems would end up being a lot more extensive than those organisms the temperate shift directly affects.
Just a couple examples, the potential damage is greater than some people believe.
tahts not true, its common earth magnetic field is weakened for a short period then to be rised again, earth core have more than enough energy to keep the magnetic field up for many million years to come
The earth is flat and global warming is a myth.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4783199.stm
ok sorry, let me rephrase :wink:tahts not true, its common earth magnetic field is weakened for a short period then to be rised again, earth core have more than enough energy to keep the magnetic field up for many million years to come
In many
(but it doe not justify wrecking the planet sooner than it would otherwise be nor make the consequences of Global warming less of an issue)
:? The discussion seems to have wandered off the topic. Is golbal warming a real threat?
It is of course! Control of the climate in the far distant past was achieved by automatic regulation of the amount of cloud cover. Gets a bit warmer, more cloud, cools off. CO2 was automatically controlled. If for some reason it was not, because of say volcanic activity or impact by interstellar objects, the CO2 was absorbed by the ocean.
Unfortunately now we have an unstable situation as a result of continental drift, that's why there have recently been intermittant glacial stages. Now when CO2 increases skies get clearer, Siberia and northern Canada provide colder air in winter. This colder air causes more CO2 to come out of the ocean. Once we stop burning fossil fuel the rate of buildup will be greatly reduced but it will remain positive and gradually increase. That is what the data shows. Sorry about that.
This year marks a first. Pop the champagne!
The Inu (eskimos) of northern Canada have officially asked for and started to purchase air conditionning units! These use to be useless in their brief and barely warm summer.
8) Well yes. It is getting warmer in summer because of global warming and clearing skies, especially in the north . At night however and in winter, with fewer clouds, it gets cooler. The controversity is whether or not this causes CO2 to come out of the ocean.
August 23rd, 2006, 08:28 AM
Hey guys. Here is a global warming paper I wrote for a government class (we had to find controverisal issues to write about).
http://eyeswithpride.blogspot.com/20...y-foot-up.html
It's on the site. I know it looks a bit odd, but take a read, please.
-kerry
icewendigo, our magnetic field ahve been almost as strong as now(what i know off), so it will hold for the rest of earth time (4,5 billion years)
eyeswithpride You provide a very good summary of the politics of Kyoto. I believe that everyone should sign on to the agreement, especially the United States as the supposed leader of the world. The sad thing is however that even if everyone did sign and meet the requirements the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere would keep increasing. Does anyone have an idea how to cause it to decrease? That is what we need.
I once heard of a proposal to spread ping pong balls over the northern Pacific Ocean. No kidding! The idea was to provide a means for the ocean to absorb more CO2. Seems impractical to me.
Ping pong balls, eh? Sounds like a great way to kill off some marine animals... Quite obviously this person didn't think things through.
...So who's taken like high school physics or something in here..? When the Sun expands, the magnetosphere won't protect us from anything, whether it is still there or not. The magnetosphere is a "ring" or layer of charged particles that help deflect and/or absorb solar radiation. When a comet/astroid strikes Earth, the magnetosphere doesn't do squat about it.In millions of years the earth will probably have no magnetic field to protect it from the expansion of the Sun which will obliterate the atmosphere and melt everything on the surface of the earth, which is why in the long run we need to expand to other planets.
(but it doe not justify wrecking the planet sooner than it would otherwise be nor make the consequences of Global warming less of an issue)
Earth's magnetic field is in a state of weakening:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science....ap/index.html
It's a sign that the poles are about to swap, which is quite overdue for Earth at this point in time. Humans as a whole will probably survive a weakened magnetic field; it's just there will be a lot more cancers because of the higher radiation passing through us.
For those of you who don't think global warming is a problem today, it probably means you are well-off enough to live someplace under constant air conditioning that could counter any possible temperature change outside. Maybe you're living in a nice neighborhood close to a large lake or a great body of freshwater.
But remember, just because you can't sense things does not mean they don't exist. Does anyone want to argue about the existence of germs? I'm assuming most of us are well-off enough; obviously we have a computer and access to the Internet already. The problem will begin (or has begun) with those who are not as fortunate for you - people, plants, animals, and other lifeforms who don't live in giant climate-controlled boxes. Polar bears, for example, are dying rapidly because of the melting of ice in the Arctic (http://www.livescience.com/animalwor...lar_bears.html). Here in Texas, it's obvious the summers have gotten warmer and warmer and drier and drier. We're on a super tight water restriction, so much that the dryness has been causing a number of foundation problems in the neighborhoods. A local soccer field used by little league players has closed down because cracks in the dirt have reached 10 inches across and 13 feet deep. Though it may not have a clear connection with, say, the air pollution American cars put out each year, we can't rule out the fact that the air pollution from these cars may indirectly affect local climate, which can explain the crevasse-like condition of our soccerfields.
In discussing climate science (and probably all sciences and issues, though climate science especially), it's important to be able to see the big picture. It's important to see what's going on outside of your house, your neighborhood, your city, state, etc. No matter how small the world seems now that we have email and instant message and forums, the Earth is still a big place where many, many, many organisms live. We have to take into account all of the factors that go into things like climate science - pollution, natural climate variation, El Nino, volcanoes, changes in sunlight intensity, feedback loops, etc. As a result, we have to be observant of all the effects it brings not just to us, but our neighbors, friends, family, jobs and markets, and our fellow earthlings, human or not.
Global warming is an issue, and it's effects are starting (or will be starting, depending on where you live) to be able to be seen in day-to-day life. Just like we shouldn't judge people in a blink of an eye, we shouldn't judge the planet, which is many times our own mass and complexity, so quickly, either. Things like climate change take time to study. Anyone who is passionate about the issue (either side) should take time to chill out a little bit and seek out unbiased information and absorb as much of it as possible. Global warming is starting to become a major issue for the public. But unlike abortion or gay marriage or flag-burning, it has some actual weight to it. If you're unsure about what to think, it's okay. Everybody seems to be in such a rush to be a part of an opinion these days that we don't take nearly as much time as we should to study situations without bias or propaganda being bombarded at us. Again, chill out, and if it means enough to you, educate yourself.
-kerry
I am also sometimes surprised by the notion that we humans were too insignificant to have an long-lasting impact on our planet. Haven't we been tampering with mother nature since the dawn of our species?
Certainly no-one will deny the existence of the hole in the ozone layer, although we can't see it. We are just lucky that this phenomenon is confined to the virtually uninhabitated polar regions, especially Antarctica. The substances responsible, the Chlorofluorocarbons, exist in concentrations that are only a tiny fraction of those amounts we have emitted through various combustion processes, and yet they have such dire consequences.
So why is it so hard to accept the facts of global warming, when practically all of the scientists who dedicate their careeres climate change agree on this issue? I think it has to do with human nature. Throughout our evolution we have learnt to react to immediate dangers, we have no sense for slow changes, be it chronic deseases or environmental problems.
I read in my lastest issue of "popular science" that one gallon (3.78 liters) of gasoline produces 19 pounds (8.61 kg) of co2. This at first seemed a little extreme to me, since a gallon of gas weighs less than 19 pounds, but then I thought the extra weight would come from the reaction with air. Then I wondered if my tailpipe on my car could actually expel that much gas in a given time. Does anyone know how to convert 1kg of co2 into cubic meters?
Another question: In certain volcanic areas co2 bubbles up from the ground, or can be released from co2 saturated lakes. Since co2 is heavier than air, it collects in low lying areas. There was one instance where a lake in Africa "burped" a huge bubble of co2, and the gas cloud covered a entire village, killing everything that breathed. I wonder if these pockets (there's a name for them, but I forget) could form along highways?
Maceiver1968 As I recall from high school chemistry 22.4 litres of any gas at NTP (normal temp and pressure, I'm not sure exactly what that is now) weighs the atomic weight in grams. So 22.4 litres of CO2 weighs 12+32=44grams.
I remember hearing about the bubble of gas released from a lake in the Camaroons, I think it was. I can't imagine pockets of CO2 collecting along the highway, however I'm sure it tends to stay near the ground and even flow downhill and be absorbed in rivers , lakes, etc. This presumably is why only about half of the estimated CO2 from burning fossil fuel contributes to the measured buildup. The 50% that stays in the atmosphere gradually diffuses upward, eventually entering the stratosphere where it contributes to greenhouse warming.
I don't know if this has been previously posted, however, it is recently found that the Ozone Layer directly above Antarctica is slowly returning and will close by 2065 in recent research. This is due to the lower levels of CFC's which was also in the article.
This is quite positive news as regards Global Warming, maybe the problem will be cleared up by the end of the century. As regards the question, yes, Global Warming is a seriuos threat and is being treated by every country involved, it s global problem with global support.
Macgyver1968 I suupose you have worked it out.
1 cubic meter or 1000liters weighs 1000/22.4x44=1.964kg
If 1 gallon of gasoline produces 8.61kg, as you say, then it releases 8.61/1.964=4.38 cubic meters of CO2. I think that's right.
Astropro2009 I didn't know so glad to hear the ozone hole is closing.
As for it being good news about global warming I don't see any connection. As far as I am aware Co2 can only increase. All countries are producing it but none are considering stopping and only a few are doing anything to reduce the rate.
I'm sorry if this stiffles debate but let's be realistic.
An elderly neigbour of mine was asking what this global Warning was all about!
What's the Global Warning? George Bush or something?
I have a Theory that if a hurricane starts to form, because warm water makes it stronger then we may be able to place a freezing bomb in the eye of one as soon as it starts to form so therefore the hurricane will have absoulutely nothing to feed off of and wee will be able to avoid disasters such as hurricane katrina.
[quote="Scholfeild"]I have a Theory that if a hurricane starts to form, because warm water makes it stronger then we may be able to place a freezing bomb in the eye of one as soon as it starts to form so therefore the hurricane will have absoulutely nothing to feed off of and wee will be able to avoid disasters such as hurricane katrina.[/quote
I reckon it would be more efficient if you used a 'hot air sponge!'
October 10th, 2006, 03:51 AM
Wow...
good blog
I have a theory that the melting of the glaciers, and the gradual warming of the ocean surface will speed up global warming at increasing rates.
Two reasons :
1. Ice has high albedo, it melts exposing rock with low albedo, thus less solar radiation is reflected and heating continues at an increasing rate.
2. As the sea gets warmer less sea ice can form, the sea ice normally acts as an insulator that keeps the ocean surface from heating quickly. So if there's less sea ice the ocean heats up faster, which in turn leads to less sea ice the following winter, leading to even faster ocean heating - see the feedback mechanism???
That's very similar to what I have seen on NASA tv. Also the third thing they mentioned was pollution which actually makes the ice a tad darker and melt that much quicker.
Yes that's right. And of course there are clouds as well. The interrelationships between all these things is not fully understood, the effects of polynyas, increased turbulence, frontal systems and things like eddies in the ocean are also poorly understood. Plus natural oscillations that have large wavelengths and the influence of the biosphere, it's too complex for us to fully understand. I'm not saying I don't believe in global warming, don't get me wrong, I know that the earth is warming up. I've seen the effects in lots of places, many independent studies spanning various fields have to me proved the phenomenon of global warming. From the effects of acidifying the ocean affecting the shells of planktic forams, to direct atmospheric measurements, the response of ice sheets etc....
Wow, politicians really did a great job getting this debate heated up! :wink:
Maybe we should pay a little more attention to what scientists have to say, and not what twisted politicians and media moguls are feeding to your empty brains.
I watched all of "An inconvenient truth" at the edge of my seat although Al Gore's self-promotion was honestly hard to bare. There is obviously some unwanted media effect included. However, the reason why the movie is worth watching, anyway, has nothing to do with Gore but a lot with hard scientific data presented. Everyone who says temperature variations are purely natural and have occurred frequently over the Earth's history is absolutely right. And all those people ought to take a look at the data and realize that we are not talking about "natural variations" any more. They are peanuts compared to what's going on. We are way beyond that, not by a factor of 2, but by orders of magnitude. You don't need much of a scientific mind to understand the simple facts.
For those of you who hate to hear Al Gore talk, you can safely mute the movie and still get the message! Just look at the data.
Certainly, there will always be people that deny the inevitable and obvious. You cannot convince them. They use thoughts and words that have been planted into their brains and mouths and propagate them, because they don't have a mind of their own. What do you expect from people who still believe that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11? People like that don't realize when they are lied to, even by the most obvious crooks posing as politicians. It's very sad when the shock, sadness and hatred, created by a terrible terrorist attack are successfully channelled into a thirst for war with a country that had nothing to do with it. It's not so much a sad day for Iraq, as for the dignity and pride of Americans. The Bush warriors sure knew how to exploit their people's emotions, and the awakening is coming very slowly, though inevitably. Who likes to admit having been played, having been lied to, having been fooled? Who likes to admit that American soldiers are dying senselessly? No one likes that, and for now we are deadlocked between a senseless occupation and the blame of "cutting and running". But we all we have to face reality, eventually.
That's not the real issue here. There will always be blind and ignorant people. The problem is that most people (including politicians, even including George W. Bush) do in fact realize the danger of human-caused global climate change, as they now call it (it's not warming everywhere indiscriminately, and it's not JUST warming!) . The problem is rather that humans are very short-sighted by nature. We are very focused on short-term costs and effects, while sticking our heads into the sand like ostriches, when confronted with long-term disaster. I think that's the main reason why even relatively reasonable human beings are deadly slow to react (we have seen this coming for decades, well, most of the world, anyway).
And then there is always the other side: those people who actually look forward to short-term benefits. Wondering why oil-companies are not thrilled about changing their way of making money? There is more than one reason, but the most cynical one is this: Melting ice caps are GREAT! How much easier do you think it will be to explore and exploit new oil-fields? There's potentially a lot of short-term money in global warming, and ironically it's for the benefit of the same guys who are a) the primary cause of the problem, and b) some of the most powerful lobbyists in Washington! Nevermind, that over a long-term we will pay a heavy price for this short-sightedness. For now we're making big bucks!
looks like 22 yes, global warming, 0 no, 3 not sure.
you would have to be living in some basement, not to feel or realize the earth is in a warming trend. you can also say the there has always been a real movement one way before the opposite takes hold. this could have happened in the 50-70 period, when many cold records were set.
my guess, the young person that posted this thread, was concerned with the cause. since in school, assume further this cause was, man made. my vote in this case is ...no...
actually, i think were in the extreme up point and this may be the ending and cooler or cold will resume, even possibly this year but for sure in the next few years. these short cycles 30-40 years, with in the longer cycles
500 years and the overview in general, GUESS still warming. none of this is man made and nothing we could possibly do will prevent either the shorter, longer or overall.
we have some pretty accurate records of temperatures and climate conditions going back one thousand plus years, from tree growth (measuring rings) the history written into those glaciers as ice formed over thousands of year and some reference in written history. even the formation of mountains reveal some history of conditions and all this combined indicates a rather active rise and fall, well beyond our recorded history of international temps.
the one question not confirmed is which direction that overview is going.
glaciers did seem to start formations about 65k ya and some argue they peaked 20-30 years ago, with several pauses (and this could be one) however its just as possible the overall cooling trend has topped out and the warming trend will continue with pauses.
How to endear yourself to the forum community....
23 yes;
M; do you think any oil company would turn down the billions of dollars in profit involved with alternative fuel, even if it eliminated oil based products. they fund nanotech companies that sole purpose is to do just that and they have researched and encouraged every other form of power. thank goodness they have not stopped looking for new sources of oil, which by the way is very costly.i suggest your problem is capitalism and not global warming.
i would comment on Al Gore, but if your aligned with his feelings, your lost anyway and according to him, its all over in 10 years, is unstoppable with no recourse, except to rid government of George Bush. if you fail to see his logic...oh well......
I read somewhere recently that it now takes the energy equivalent energy of 2 barrels of oil to extract the energy of three!
Isn't it about time we gave up and went nuclear electric + electric transport?
Sadly though most people don't seem to want to swap their 4x4 for a future for their kids....
I am not excluding myself from that. We are all vulnerable to the onslaught of politically motivated misinformation. Recognizing that is a first step to protection which too many people are not prepared to take.M wrote:
and not what twisted politicians and media moguls are feeding to your empty brains.
How to endear yourself to the forum community....
You are right, oil giants are smart enough to prepare for a life after oil (I never suggested they be stupid), but they won't stop digging until the expense of exploration overtakes the profits. Decisions are made purely on a basis of short-term profits, not morality, ethics, common sense, not even on the basis of long-term benefits for humanity. Nevertheless, capitalism is not the problem. You could say it's the cause of the problem, but even that would be too general a statement. I would say short-sighted greed is the cause of the problem, and I am not convinced that capitalism always has to be dominated by greed (although it currently seems to be). Obviously, capitalism is a great driver for economy, but if you want a social society you need to put a curb on it. Consideration and the urge to share are just not imprinted into our DNA. They require some kind of education, smartness, and thoughtfulness. Greed, on the other hand, is one of the most basic animalistic instincts.M; do you think any oil company would turn down the billions of dollars in profit involved with alternative fuel, even if it eliminated oil based products. they fund nanotech companies that sole purpose is to do just that and they have researched and encouraged every other form of power. thank goodness they have not stopped looking for new sources of oil, which by the way is very costly.i suggest your problem is capitalism and not global warming.
That shouldn't be an excuse to be blindly greedy, though.
Not really (have you seen the docu?). Yes, he comes across as very frustrated, very desparate, and he sure enough has reason to be, as we all do. But he realizes like almost everyone else, that nothing would be worse than "staying the course". We are past the point to make it undone, but at any point in time you always have the choice to either put a bandage on it or keep digging into the wound. What's our choice? What can you do personally? What kind of car do you drive (if you have to drive)? How do you cast your vote? "I can do nothing about it" has never been an option, and it's certainly not true as long as I am mentally healthy enough to make my own decisions.i would comment on Al Gore, but if your aligned with his feelings, your lost anyway
Yes. One of the things that morbidly fascinates me is the way (some) society submits to the commercial industry. How in the world did they manage to make people believe they need to drive a Jeep through the jungle of the city, when all they do is drive to work? How do they make "soccer moms" believe you need a 2 ton 200 HP 4x4 to transport 2 kids and a soccer ball? It's incredible, and I think that's a very important key to many of society's problems (not just global climate change). Is it merely a question of education, or is there some misguided animalistic instinct (apart from greed) behind all this madness?Sadly though most people don't seem to want to swap their 4x4 for a future for their kids....
Yeah I saw somewhere that in London congestion is so bad that walking or cycling is quicker than a car in 40% of journeys in the heart of the city.
This did include 'parking' time, the two hour walk to your car to drive it 300 yards....
m; one thing i am not is an Al Gore groupie. a couple post back, i wrote an answer to his thoughts on GW. the cycles earth goes through are not new, are factual and do not involve mans activity.
the desire to achieve is not greed. generally it does involve monetary gains, but to belittle the monetary and not the achievement seems counter productive. there are far more people that achieve w/o substantial monetary or even social gains.
personally, i conserve likely more than you, but because i need less.
mega; the cost or energy to produce a gallon of gas, is far less than any time in history. the cost to find, transport crude and get to a customer is
at all time highs. the cost alone to rent an additional ocean rig, is over 200k per day. you analogy, was probably for ethanol, which is costly to produce and only possible, for cheapness of the product used. corn, sugar and waste, the most popular.
Jackson33.
If my source was not reliable or not about petroleum than I would not have commited it to memory, I will treat it with caution though...
Really? How can you say "likely", based on knowing everything about yourself, and close to nothing about me. Is that your way of making scientific statements? :wink:personally, i conserve likely more than you, but because i need less.
of all i wrote, this is your question....i live in a studio,(small town all bills paid 500 Mo. incl maid service) i work here trading stocks, i play here on line,(poker) i drive a 92 Dodge Van 30 MPG past six years
on ave. 200 miles per year. i do have some means and could do much more, but after 40 years of continental travel, i enjoy what i do. my total expenses per month are about 1100 USD and in time my kids will get some, to do what they like. my statements, i prefer to say, are based in logic and what i say on environmental science is based on opinions of others interpreted and expressed in what i feel makes sense. to think you do less than i do, would not be logical, though is possible.
My house is at about 50 degrees F because I am too much of a tight-ass.of all i wrote, this is your question....i live in a studio,(small town all bills paid 500 Mo. incl maid service) i work here trading stocks, i play here on line,(poker) i drive a 92 Dodge Van 30 MPG past six years
on ave. 200 miles per year. i do have some means and could do much more, but after 40 years of continental travel, i enjoy what i do. my total expenses per month are about 1100 USD and in time my kids will get some, to do what they like. my statements, i prefer to say, are based in logic and what i say on environmental science is based on opinions of others interpreted and expressed in what i feel makes sense. to think you do less than i do, would not be logical, though is possible.
i have recollection of similar statements, but as to ethanol. threw in some other stuff, since Exxon reported another 10b dollar quarter this morning.
I knew a greek once who's name was Titus Aduksass :wink:
william; move south...i stay at 70-75 degrees year round and my heat pump runs about 2 hours a year. landlord loves me...
Ah that accounts for some of your theories then, all hot air! :-D
that means some have substance. my glass half full. believe me, you have no idea where some of my ideas go. my overview of science is its going down the wrong road and a good many logically acceptable ideas are being temporarily ignored. to much is accepted, simply because they heard something in a classroom, global warming, supply of oil and BB are three i have seen today.Ah that accounts for some of your theories then, all hot air! :-D
I used 'some' for severals reasons,
1) I may not have read all of them.
2) Some of them are not within my scientific 'range'
3) Some of them are beyond my comprehension.
4) Some of them did not flow 'grammatically'
5) I didn't want to say 'bollocks'
Yes we're all tend to suddenly veer off course as we get older I guess it's something to price of furniture has remained constant now throughout Europe for killed in the accident at the weekend.
yes, I like to pick up on the subtle clues. :wink:of all i wrote, this is your question....
So you actually do have a car, and based on your descriptions you live in an industrialized country, judging by the currency you quote, quite possibly in the US. Knowing almost nothing about me, it should seem likely to you that I live either in China or India, the two countries which hold a majority of the Earth's population, are developed enough to allow internet access and an English education (especially India). Now about energy consumption, driving Dodge van's, having a history of continental travel... should I go on or do you see my point? Not everything is always what it seems. Don't get me wrong, you should be proud of being an environmentally conscious member of your society, but you are still way on top of the global energy consumption chain. Picking another user of the global internet at random.. he or she will not likely be a more ferocious consumer.i live in a studio,(small town all bills paid 500 Mo. incl maid service) i work here trading stocks, i play here on line,(poker) i drive a 92 Dodge Van 30 MPG past six years
on ave. 200 miles per year. i do have some means and could do much more, but after 40 years of continental travel, i enjoy what i do. my total expenses per month are about 1100 USD and in time my kids will get some, to do what they like. my statements, i prefer to say, are based in logic and what i say on environmental science is based on opinions of others interpreted and expressed in what i feel makes sense. to think you do less than i do, would not be logical, though is possible.
Why am I picking on this? Because statements as 'likely' and 'probably' thoughtlessly thrown around can be dangerous projectiles. I have been talking about media misinformation, and much of the pseudo-scientific stuff politicians and media try to feed us is backed up by so called "statistics". We cannot be shakey in our understanding of probability and claim to understand the difference between BS and science. Sorry for picking on you to make this point, don't take it personally.
Yes, but what we are seeing right now is orders of magnitude beyond what we know from the past as "cycles". I already mentioned that as one of the major points in the documentary. Since you saw the docu, you must be familiar with the data. To simply state "the cycles are not new and not human caused" means to discuss the elevation of your goose bumps when you're looking at Mount Everest (in slight exaggeration). It also means to disregard all scientific evidence on the effect of man-produced green-house gases. It's not like we don't know why this is happening, but to deny that it is happening is silly.m; one thing i am not is an Al Gore groupie. a couple post back, i wrote an answer to his thoughts on GW. the cycles earth goes through are not new, are factual and do not involve mans activity.
Depends... the desire to achieve what? I wasn't talking about the awesome achievements of Maria Theresa. I am not sure what kind of achievement you are referring to. The desire to make a lot of money beyond your needs is nothing but greed, wouldn't you say? Yes, there are lots of people who achieve great things without looking for the money. Which CEO of which oil company would you count into that group? I am not buying your implied naivete. Are you saying we should be thankful for the selfless humanitarian acts of the oil industry? We sure depend on them in some way, but I didn't quite think of them that way. :-Dthe desire to achieve is not greed. generally it does involve monetary gains, but to belittle the monetary and not the achievement seems counter productive. there are far more people that achieve w/o substantial monetary or even social gains.
M..; i don't care much for figure's either. first, they most often can be used in opposing arguments with opposite conclusions and the figures can be contrived to give the writers viewpoint. on my little essay, i suggested several ways these cycles have been determined, all available on line with some conclusions by scholars, scientist and most interesting a good many high level people in weather.
a good bit of the research, goes back to the 50's thru 70's, in efforts to disprove global cooling, which was the [topic of that day]. a lot of it was done with no intent to prove anything and an interest in the earths past was the only motivation.
i have no idea, what Al Gore's motives are. it may be his last efforts to gain popularity or he may genuinely believe, what he says. personally i don't like the person and as a human, with people i don't like, tend to disregard what he says. my opinions may be political, since i feel, he or his handlers, deeply corrupted the American political system, after his loss in Florida.
you are welcome to pick on me, but you know your not getting a virgin. i
tend to draw fire, from many directions and this may be, that i rarely reply to post, i agree with. with due respect, i will stand up for business, or the concept of capitalism as i feel the public participation (shareholders) has given a good many an opportunity to live well and enjoy retirement, otherwise maybe not possible.
my guess you are probably a lady, living in the the UK or Western Europe. you probably do drive daily, but a small car and work in a field that will not put in in daily contact with large numbers of people.you friends, clients or associates are mostly like minded and you avoid those with opposing view. you show signs, to me of not being real sure of your views and may be looking for support. this you will get, in these forums, since there would seems to be a lot of discontent to just about everything, with no problem in disclosing.
you read a good share of them, since you have opposed most everything i have written. i have thought it was personal, maybe from another forum or you know my work from someplace. no question, i have trouble getting my points across, to apparently a good many people and have real trouble when needing words that don't exist to explain something thats not in books.I used 'some' for severals reasons,
1) I may not have read all of them.
2) Some of them are not within my scientific 'range'
3) Some of them are beyond my comprehension.
4) Some of them did not flow 'grammatically'
5) I didn't want to say 'bollocks'
Yes we all tend to suddenly veer off course as we get older I guess it's something to price of furniture has remained constant now throughout Europe for killed in the accident at the weekend.
if i were you, i wouldn't worry to much about the age thing. you may have trouble with a verbal debate, but with time, your written word can make sense for some time.
Jackson just what are you arguing??
Natural oscillations, or "cycles" such as the El Nino Southern Oscillation, and the longer period Milankovic cycles are well documented. This doesn't change the fact that pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere will cause global warming. Sure greenhouse gases (particularly CH4) are naturally released (by large impacts, the rotting of biomass in response to sea level rises, changes in ocean circulation, volcanoes etc....) which explains why there has been significant global warming in the past eg, the K-T boundary, EETM thermal maximum, Quaternary.
The release of CO2 by humans is a new phenomenon, which is why we don't fully understand it - but you can't deny it, and you can't use the past to explain it (when there weren't even any humans).
I have only opposed that which you write which contradicts what I understand to be the generally accepted truth. If I'm not sure what I'm writing I usually post script it with "This could all be bollocks". Unfortunately for you, in my opinion many of your posts contain scientific innacuracies.... 8)
lots of big words; mans "phenomenon" on the environment is small compared to that of nature. simplistically put; nature is doing its thing, dirtying up the planet and fixing itself up, while man struggles along. if it had intelligent, it probably isn't aware were here or anything different than the rest of organic or inorganic life.
we can't harm it and we can't fix it. if we all died today, buried our selfs and all we process, things would not change that much. maybe .005% cleaner air over the next, ten years, but one extra minor volcano eruption and that would be lost.
next time you get a good rain storm, check your air quality and you will find perfect conditions for a picnic. since your bound to come back with
forestry levels, check out the tens of thousand of family farms of the 20th century that have grown over or the acres of forest planted by the industry that uses it- you'll find a substantial increase in the figures.
how about oil tankers leaking there load in the oceans, never mind the natural seepage that dwarfs that figure. no we are no match for nature and if nature decides tomorrow were a goner, we'll be gone.
the climate changes over the past 1000 years, are the concern here. the ups and down of the temperatures and growing patterns spell out highs or lows, much greater than todays higher or the 60's lowers. i have suggested we are getting close to a lower trend and the higher trend will be missed, that i can guarantee. also i am in the overall view of warmer climates for the next 200 years, but many think we are headed down, this just a little cycle.
Changes in ice sheets, sea level rises, the response of several organism (particularly marine eg, krill and planktic formainefera) and many other things have all been linked directly to global warming. Global warming has been linked directly to CO2 emmissions.
You can't ignore that, you can kid yourself that we have no control over CO2 emmissions, and that no matter how much we pump out it still won't be significant. You can say that all these observations are part of the earth's natural cycles anyway, and that if we weren't here things would still be the same. But quite frankly I doubt you've got any further than some popular TV documentary; you clearly have little appreciation of the ocean, ice sheet, and atmosphere climate system.
We are pushing the earth towards global warming, if you cannot see that you are blind. In the past these things have occurred naturally and the causes have been speculative (apart from perhaps the KT which was almost certainly due to a meteorite impact), but they have presumably still happened for good reasons. To say "oh it's part of a cycle" without any appreciation of what that cycle is (eg period) or what drives that cycle is in my opinion rather idiotic, and to me it represents bad science. Open your eyes to the light!!!!
if there is any topic, that brings out passion, with or with out political implication, it is global warming.
i have said, the planet is warming, i don't disagree we produce some of what gets into the atmosphere, i do agree we could do something about it
and i am not concerned about dying in 10 years for reasons Al Gore suggest. what i am saying, nothing we do, short of turning off the sun will or could make much difference. we can plant a billion trees and if that too many, nature will correct it or if we put to much something in the air, nature will correct it. we cant...never could or never will, have that ability.
i understand a good deal of your argument but am confused on ocean ice sheeting. also i consider myself as far out there on possibilities as anyone.
atmospheric changes over the eons are basic arguments i use and have caused catastrophic problems for the earth in the past. i think there have been eight major extinction of life, events in the past. to the best of my knowledge man was not driving his little car around 65B or 240B years ago, to cause the worst two.
i should research this, but you might check to total contribution of earths current volcanic emissions, which is a little high right now, to that of the total cars/trucks on the road. it might shock you. one quote i recall was NYC in its entire past, present and future will never equal the junk put into the atmosphere from Mt. Saint Helen's, in two hours.
what i most object to, is the garbage put into young minds that we headed to hell in a hand basket, if republican continue to hold office and refuse to shut down the capitalistic society. this is pure nonsense based on incorrect facts, fraudulent documentaries, selfish motivations and no real desire to do anything about it, other than to attain some power over people a little smarter than them. this means, i am not aligned against you, or the folks who think like you. i do wish this passion could be generated toward other worthwhile ventures and there are plenty of them.
I've tried to speak objectively about a scientific phenomenon, I haven't stated whether it's good or bad, I haven't got at all political and taken any sides. Nor do I wish to.
Ironically, I think it is you that is trying to turn this into a political thing by continually bringing up and putting down this Al Gore thing (which I have not seen). Frankly I couldn't give a toss, but you are clearly pouncing upon this opportunity to spread your political message.
There is clearly some uncertainty as to whether man's input is causing global warming, accelerating it, or having no effect whatsoever. I personally think it is having an effect, at a time when the 'natural cycle' is tending towards a maximum. I think we should bear this in mind.
There exists the possibility that man's behaviour could push things 'over the top' and as such I ask, why the hell should we risk this?
I suspect that by the time the answer becomes indisputable it will be too late.
Here is one article that suggests man's input to global warming may not be as large as others think.
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVF.../ice_ages.html
billards; Al Gore was brought up by "M" and is a hot button for me. however you did not and i should have addressed you points and not "M".
i do stand, however on the response to you w/o him. read my response to megabrain and possibly you can understand, from where i come....
| « Geology resources | Himalayan Earthquakes » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
