Air over some parts of the open southern oceans may be the last vestiges of almost pre-industrial skies. The only pollutants in that air are sea salt, a little mineral dust, a faint whiff of brimstone from volcanoes and a smidgen of smoke from wildfires.

It's not that someone is hoping to bottle the virgin air and sell it. Rather, the air is needed to understand how much dust was around to trigger cloud formation and rainfall before humans started inadvertently tinkering with the system.

http://www.realitynews.com/archive/334.html

Yep, we should all go back to living like we did in the Stone Age. Oops, wait a minute, how much pollutants does campfires put into the air? Let's see, 6 billion people on the planet, say, 3 billion campfires buring 24 hrs a day all over the planet ...that's a lot of fuckin' smoke, ain't it?

Okay, we should all go back to livin' like we did in the Stone Age BEFORE fire was discovered ...we could all eat raw, bloody meat ...ain't no big deal, right?

Baron Max

And how much of the world still uses wood fires for cooking? clearing land, heating, coal is the next most used fuel source around the world, and how many places out side the Industrialized Nations use Smoke Stack Scrubbing technology, India? China? Russia?, take a look at the air quality around their industrial cities. Then look at pictures of American skies, a major difference.

Every time is remember the Saddam oil well fires i get knots on my stomach...uh, thats all.

Yep, we should all go back to living like we did in the Stone Age.

Nope, we just need fewer people, especially fewer stupid ones.

Yep, we should all go back to living like we did in the Stone Age. Oops, wait a minute, how much pollutants does campfires put into the air? Let's see, 6 billion people on the planet, say, 3 billion campfires buring 24 hrs a day all over the planet ...that's a lot of fuckin' smoke, ain't it?

Okay, we should all go back to livin' like we did in the Stone Age BEFORE fire was discovered ...we could all eat raw, bloody meat ...ain't no big deal, right?

Baron Max

baron, before fire we sucked the marrow from bones. we didnt eat raw bloody meat.

we could use nuclear power. it lets off steam into the atmosphere and leaves behind a small amount of waste, but besides that it's efficient and clean.

and before you say it kills, more people die in production and from pollution from fossil fuels nuclear power.

If we could find a way to rid ourselves of the waste, it would be perfect.

Explain that to the democrats, and their anti nuke constituents.

Yep, we should all go back to living like we did in the Stone Age. Oops, wait a minute, how much pollutants does campfires put into the air?

And how much of the world still uses wood fires for cooking?

You are both laboring under a basic misconception. Let me educate you.

Wood is a sustainable resource. Burning wood adds no net carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

Here's how it works: a tree grows by absorbing carbon dioxide and releasing oxygen as a byproduct. When the tree dies and falls, in the ordinary course of events it decomposes on the forest floor, returning some carbon to the ground and some to the air. Then a new tree grows and the cycle repeats.

If a person cuts down a tree and burns its wood, the same amount of carbon dioxide is released as would be released if the tree had died by itself. So, burning wood adds nothing overall to the net carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.The only caveat is that the cutting and burning of trees must be done in a sustainable manner - as was done when we were all living with camp fires etc. Obviously, cutting huge swaths of Amazonian rainforest without planting new trees will, in the short term, have an impact on global carbon dioxide levels.

On the other hand, burning fossil fuels is an unsustainable process. Coal, oil and gas are formed at VERY low rates - the process takes millions of years. Their formation absorbs carbon dioxide, and, like wood, burning them releases carbon dioxide. The problem is that our current rates of burning coal, oil etc. are FAR higher than the rate at which new coal, oil etc. is being formed.

The conclusion is that wood is much more environmentally friendly than fossil fuels.

Clear now?

And as I said coal is the next most used energy source, now look at the pictures of the industrial cities of Russia, China, India, and then add to that the forest burning that is taking place in the third world, now check the pictures of any industrial site in America, and tell me there is more pollution by the U.S.

Why not look at actual statistics on population, rather than making assumptions based on a few photos? I mean, really, the information is readily available.

Why not look at actual statistics on population, rather than making assumptions based on a few photos? I mean, really, the information is readily available.

Can't believe information any more. For every article that's pro-whatever, there's dozens that are con-whatever ...and all of them have irrefutable proof of their stance.

No, James, in today's world, we can't really take anything as "the truth". And if we do, and we're stupid enough to tell anyone, then others will disagree and call us gullible and stupid.

It's no wonder that there's so much conflict in the world.

Baron Max

And seeing is believing, the pictures are proof, you can see the difference in air quality, the smog levels, the visible pollution, so tell me again were is the most pollution coming from, the pictures show the truth. and the fact is that I have been to many of these places in the Army, and have seen with my own eye's and smelled the difference with my own nose.

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/01/04/gallery/cleanair_zoom.jpg

Wow, in that picture, the sky is so nice and blue, it looks so good I could drink it, even tho it's air. And look at that ocean too!

I wish we could get rid of our constant yellow tinge. :(

- N

The conclusion is that wood is much more environmentally friendly than fossil fuels.

That was a good explanation.

Problem: if today's world population burns wood, there aren't going to be forests left.

And it gets worse in the next generation. Ready for general eugenics yet? ;)

Well, either we are partway through a warming cycle or there's simply too many people on this planet. I read it would take 3 planets to sustain the worlds present population - we're eating into our resources at an unsustainable rate.

A Special Moment in History - 98.05
The entire world population could fit into Texas, and each person could have an ... All over the earth people who were once tiny are suddenly growing like ...
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98may/special1.htm

A Special Moment in History - 98.05
The entire world population could fit into Texas, and each person could have an ... All over the earth people who were once tiny are suddenly growing like ...
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98may/special1.htm

A Special Moment in History - 98.05
The entire world population could fit into Texas, and each person could have an ... All over the earth people who were once tiny are suddenly growing like ...
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98may/special1.htm

A Special Moment in History - 98.05
The entire world population could fit into Texas, and each person could have an ... All over the earth people who were once tiny are suddenly growing like ...
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98may/special1.htm

A Special Moment in History - 98.05
The entire world population could fit into Texas, and each person could have an ... All over the earth people who were once tiny are suddenly growing like ...
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98may/special1.htm

A Special Moment in History - 98.05
The entire world population could fit into Texas, and each person could have an ... All over the earth people who were once tiny are suddenly growing like ...
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98may/special1.htmWe may still be seriously depleating the resources of this planet.

National Geographic: (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/11/061102-seafood-threat.html)Seafood .. Gone by 2048

A Special Moment in History - 98.05
The entire world population could fit into Texas, and each person could have an ... All over the earth people who were once tiny are suddenly growing like ...
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98may/special1.htmWe still may be depleating the resources of this planet.

National Geographic: (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/11/061102-seafood-threat.html)Seafood ... Gone by 2048

Undeterred, Paul Ehrlich curiously chose to resurrect Malthus's theory in his 1968 book The Population Bomb. Disregarding the obvious likelihood that his assertions would soon be disproven and ridiculed, he boldly stated, "the battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines – hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now." In fact, Ehrlich went so far as to bizarrely label this event "The Great Die-Off."

On February 24, 1895, the New York Times ran the following headline: "Geologists Think the World May be Frozen up Again." On October 7, 1912, the Times announced that a professor "Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age."

Climate alarmists again reversed course in the 1970s, switching back to "Global Cooling." On December 29, 1974, the New York Times proclaimed cooling temperatures, and warned, "the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure in a decade."

Newsweek Magazine joined this global cooling chorus in 1975, pleading that "there are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically, and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth."

:rolleyes:

Those studies are almost a half a century old! One was from the 1800s?!?? I think population studies have improved in the last 5 decades. You know - I think this thing called a computer may have helped a little ;)

No.

When they can explain the global warming on Mars were man does not have a INFLUENCE, I will believe them, and as for the computer models, they do not show repeatable sustainable prediction results unless so many factors are removed from the equations as to make the models useless, and on the other hand they don't have the ability to put all the information that is involved in our environmental cycle, because then the model crashes, and they also admit that they don't know all the factors that govern global warming and cooling.

Yep, we should all go back to living like we did in the Stone Age. Oops, wait a minute, how much pollutants does campfires put into the air? Let's see, 6 billion people on the planet, say, 3 billion campfires buring 24 hrs a day all over the planet ...that's a lot of fuckin' smoke, ain't it?

Okay, we should all go back to livin' like we did in the Stone Age BEFORE fire was discovered ...we could all eat raw, bloody meat ...ain't no big deal, right?

Baron Max

You try too hard Baron.

When they can explain the global warming on Mars were man does not have a INFLUENCE, I will believe them, and as for the computer models, they do not show repeatable sustainable prediction results unless so many factors are removed from the equations as to make the models useless, and on the other hand they don't have the ability to put all the information that is involved in our environmental cycle, because then the model crashes, and they also admit that they don't know all the factors that govern global warming and cooling.I didn't say anything about global warming - I posted a study that said if the known fish stocks are depleted at the rate they are now by 2048 the industry will no longer be sustainable.

This is hardly news – many fish and marine mammals have been taken in such massive rates that they were on the verge of extinction. Many species of Whales at the turn of the century, Beluga Sturgeon, some salmon and tuna stocks + many more. Similar to land animals (ex: white rhinos) if you kill enough of them they disappear – forever.

This report simply stated that at the rate we are taking fish – expect what happened to mink whale 100 years ago (when the earths population was much much smaller) to happen to tuna, salmon, sturgeon, ocean trout, orange ruffie, barramundi etc…. it was hardly a surprising study and there has been absolutely no controversy about the data. Everyone agrees – yes this is gong to happen if we continue to take gazillions of fish without leaving enough to breed replacement fish.


Michael

Yep, we should all go back to living like we did in the Stone Age. Oops, wait a minute, how much pollutants does campfires put into the air? Let's see, 6 billion people on the planet, say, 3 billion campfires buring 24 hrs a day all over the planet ...that's a lot of fuckin' smoke, ain't it?

Okay, we should all go back to livin' like we did in the Stone Age BEFORE fire was discovered ...we could all eat raw, bloody meat ...ain't no big deal, right?

Baron MaxWhy do you have to go so polar opposite? It’s as if someone said “hey asbestos causes cancer you’d say “That’s it! No more houses – live off the land – screw society…!!! Grrrr meat meat .. Killll …. BLOOOD … AND ANARCHY!!!

LOL

No there are other alternatives, much like asbestos; we should take a look into them. Anyway – oil isn’t going to last forever.

Michael

Why do you have to go so polar opposite? It’s as if someone said “hey asbestos causes cancer you’d say “That’s it! No more houses – live off the land – screw society…!!! Grrrr meat meat .. Killll …. BLOOOD … AND ANARCHY!!!

I'm sorry, I apologize to you and all of the member who might have been offended. Please accept my humble apology and I'll try not to ever post anything that might offend anyone else again.

Baron Max

If the atmosphere is warming, that would warm the surface of the oceans, which would cause more evaporation, for more clouds, which would cool the atmosphere back down.

Baron Max


Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit


:D
Michael

No, shit-eating-grin smilies are the lowest.

Oh Snapz!

Baron Max, Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit

I'm sorry, Michael, truly sorry. And even more sorry if I've offended you again! Please, please accept my apology again ...but there was no offense intended.

Baron Max

No, shit-eating-grin smilies are the lowest.touché!

Thanks Michael.

IceAgeCivilizations

If the atmosphere is warming, that would warm the surface of the oceans, which would cause more evaporation, for more clouds, which would cool the atmosphere back down.

But wouldn't that trap more infrared radiation which would increase the warming? And again, the sun is putting out more energy, which is causing global warming on Mars, would that then not show this is a natural occurrence, and that to control global warming we would have to be able to control the sun?

More cloud-cover today causes cooling of the atmosphere below the clouds, infrared radiation doesn't prevent this from happening.

And yes, obviously, if the Sun is getting hotter, there is nothing to do about that, but I do think that the increased cloud-coverage which would result, from evaporation off the oceans to form more clouds, would cause the atmosphere to cool back down, a buffer system.

But, infrared radiation does penetrate cloud cover, I had several nasty sun burns as a young adult form not wearing tee-shirt on over cast days working on the farm.

http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=ja04abrams

On November 12, 2002, Miller highlighted the preparation for, and likelihood of, Iraqi use of poison gas. "Iraq has ordered large quantities of a drug that can be used to counter the effects of nerve gas," she wrote. According to administration officials, "'If the Iraqis were going to use nerve agent, they would want to take [such] steps to protect their own soldiers.'"

On December 3, the threat was biowarfare: "Iraq obtained a particularly virulent strain of smallpox from a Russian scientist," she wrote, citing an unnamed informant.


On September 18, 2002, Miller's piece on the U.N. Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) cast doubt on its ability to uncover Iraqi WMD. She quoted David Kay as believing that U.N. inspectors were on a "mission impossible." "They are weaker" than an earlier inspection team, according to former inspector Richard Spertzel. Inspectors claimed that Hans Blix, UNMOVIC head and the chief chemical and biological weapons inspector, "had eliminated many of the more aggressive inspectors from his organization."

Emphasizing the flaws of the new inspection regime, its inability to detect "cheating," and predicting its failure to find WMD was central to the Bush administration's marginalization of Hans Blix; it also supported the administration's argument that it needed to move beyond diplomacy to assure Iraqi compliance.

On November 12, 2002, Miller highlighted the preparation for, and likelihood of, Iraqi use of poison gas. "Iraq has ordered large quantities of a drug that can be used to counter the effects of nerve gas," she wrote. According to administration officials, "'If the Iraqis were going to use nerve agent, they would want to take [such] steps to protect their own soldiers.'"

On December 3, the threat was biowarfare: "Iraq obtained a particularly virulent strain of smallpox from a Russian scientist," she wrote, citing an unnamed informant.

The planet Venus has total cloud cover, and look at it. It isn't cooling. Its surface temperature is hot enough to melt lead.