View Full Version : You think global warming is a problem?
Success_Machine
05-01-02, 08:43 AM
I estimate we'll experience severe oil shortages by 2015, and completely run out by 2032. But wait....
the world's avg. temperature could rise by nearly 1.2 degrees!!! Oh NO !!!!
goofyfish
05-01-02, 08:59 AM
Please show your work. ;)
Peace.
Pollux V
05-01-02, 11:09 AM
oooh oooh oooh i'm just a success machine ,dunnnanunna a success machine, oooooh, im just a success machine, dunnnanannnu...
Success_Machine
05-01-02, 11:44 AM
Most people just read the subject heading, and post a dumb response. If you are interested in details, I've slapped together a simple webpage with some documentation.
http://www.geocities.com/womplex_oo1/MyWebpage.html
So Goofyfish, you've seen my work, what's your opinion?
And Pollux V, what song is that?!
Pollux V
05-01-02, 11:58 AM
Sorry, success, I've been singing that song I think every time I've ever seen one of your threads. It's the slight variation of 'Love Machine,' you know. Ooooh, I'm just a love machine, dunnnannnuhnah a love machine." I kinda forget the words.
It's just my little thing.
sjmarsha
05-01-02, 12:25 PM
That car by VW looks quite good.
Pictures Here... (http://www.vwvortex.com/news/index_1L.html)
239 mpg is very very very good
The Metatron
05-01-02, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by Pollux V
Sorry, success, I've been singing that song I think every time I've ever seen one of your threads. It's the slight variation of 'Love Machine,' you know. Ooooh, I'm just a love machine, dunnnannnuhnah a love machine." I kinda forget the words.
It's just my little thing.
Do you mean
Im just a love machine
a hugging kissing fiend
Im just a love machine
and I wont dance with any body but you
its by the 70's funk group "The Silvers".
Lesion42
05-01-02, 02:42 PM
Now just replace every instance of the word "love" with "success" and your there.:D
Success_Machine
05-01-02, 09:33 PM
So I had no idea the song even existed.
Fukushi
05-01-02, 11:26 PM
is a fact. Welcome Cataclismus!
Success_Machine
05-02-02, 12:59 AM
I guess we better brace for that 1.2 deg. increase in temperature. I'll make sure the grills on my air conditioner are clean and working at 100 percent. I'll seriously look into buying a short-sleeved shirt too. Yup! It's gonna be one hell of a ride!!!
Global warming is a natural process. Millions and millions of years ago, the earth was witness to an atmosphere with 10 times as much CO2 and here we are complaining about it. Of coarse this extra ordinary concentraion could probably be attributed to industrialization and cars, but its natural. There are ice ages, warmer ages, ice ages, thats just the way things work. I'm sure we'd all be much more upset if there was global cooling.
Unlike most places, we Calgarians dont need air conditioners. I'd actually welcome global warming for hot weather during summers (warm winter would melt hockey rinks), cause I'm so deprived of it. The highest temperature every reached in calgary was like 96 or 97 fahrenheit - nothing compared to the 118 fahrenheit I walked through in New York a few years back.
I'm more worried about ozone depletion. In 40 years, you wont be able to walk outside without sunscreen (of coarse most of you will be dead by then).
Oh and BTW my province has enough oil for the world to last on until something like 2050, so dont be worrying about that 2032, success machine.
Northwind
05-02-02, 02:18 AM
*hassenfrazzingramblefragbragget*
I get so sick of ignorant asswipes sounding off on this issue. Global warming is not anything so simple as "higher temps in summer". The Earth's weather system is basically a big engine powered by, you guessed it, HEAT. When there is more heat, the engine has more power. The engine has more power, you get more sever weather on both ends of the scale. COLDER, longer winters. Hotter, longer, drier summers. More powerful storms, greater occurrence of hurricanes and more devastating tornadoes. More flooding, leading to large landslides. And guess what, it only takes about a degree or so rise to make all of that happen.
Hey Northwind,
Careful with those anvils! I felt the wind of that passing by while I was reading the thread. Standing too close I'll wager.
He's right folks...
Success_Machine
05-02-02, 03:56 AM
I've read that most of the oil reserves that Alberta says they have are tied up in tar sand & shale deposits. I've also read that you have to burn about 9 barrels of "cheap" oil to yield one barrel of oil from shale. That is reversed for conventional oilfields like the ones in Saudi Arabia. I am sure some of it is recoverable, but I am also sure that most of it is not. Suncor abandoned a shale oil project in Australia in april 2001 because they could not extract the oil while meeting minimum environmental standards. In fact residents of the area were suing them because of it. If it weren't for the huge supposed oil deposits that Alberta keeps misleading Canadians into believing they possess, we would realize that Canada has about 2 years of oil, of the kind that can simply be pumped out of the ground. Not very much. It's my guess that by 2005 Alberta will get more than 75% of its oil from whatever part of those tar sands are economically recoverable. After they are depleted (hard to say when, not long I suspect) we will switch to coal liquefaction, and say then that coal smells like perfume, and that we're swimming in vast reserves of it.
Fukushi
05-02-02, 08:58 AM
Global warming is a natural process
As is human nature: spoiling the earth, poluting, wasting, killing,...yep that too is a natural proces: or would you claim that human nature is not natural? no didn't think so, so is it natural then, that humans are in a self-killing prophecy? : The fact remains: that humans don't have proven to take care of themselves,...we've been around for howlong? and look in what a short timetable humans fucked up the earth,..in a way that humans can't live in their own shit anymore: they are dying from their own induced problems that are swarming the planet: that's the point !!! Ofcourse it's a natural proces, there's no point in stating that,...
Nature has been emerging from other cataclisms from time to time troughout history yes,...but not in the way that has been induced over the (just recently) couple of decades,...hiding behind the way of natrure telling that Nature itself is the cause of it would be a horrific and relentless lie,....truth is : it's not much of an exuse to relax your conciounce with statements like that: I know it's hard for everybody,...but all is really ONE AND EVERYTHING IS CONNECTED,...even sience is realizing that,...
Millions and millions of years ago, the earth was witness to an atmosphere with 10 times as much CO2 and here we are complaining about it
Millions and millions huh? That timeframe is a little out of date you recon? humans couldn't possibly live under those circustances,...persides: the fact that the atmosphere changed towards a different composition is merely because the fauna & flora florisshed,...it didn't decay in the rate that humans are doing now in just a few decades,...it has been proven by sientific studies that nature has it's cataclisms yes: and there are factors involved with that. And now this factor is building up to it's critical point of cataclism, those are facts: I shal refraze myself: it's not Fictionous,....it's not an idear,...
this extra ordinary concentraion could probably be attributed to industrialization and cars, but its natural.
so cars grow on tries then? As do these flying fabrics : humans call em : 'airplanes'. I know that your not familiar with those figures so I'll give some idear of just how many cars that these things could fuel,...so here it goes:
- for every passenger on the flight, let's say from Europ to America,....you can fuel a car for ONE WHOLE YEAR /PERSON!!!
so every flight spils gallons of fuel: and here's the catch ofcourse: there aren't as many Airplanes as there are cars,....but they sure produce more wast in the air then you could possibly imagine,...now you can with my explanation I HOPE: ofcourse you could argue that those planes flying high above: but what goes up is deffinately coming down,...not to mention the fabrics of other high-altitude gasses that actually speed up and contrubute to global warming.
There are ice ages, warmer ages, ice ages, thats just the way things work.
So what you are saying is actually this: don't worry everything is okay, because it's just the way of the natural processes: BUT DON'T FORGET TO MENTION (not the least to yourself and to your conciounse): that those 'natural' processes are being triggered by conditions inflicted by humans UPON THOSE NATURAL BIOPHERESand that humans are INTERFERRING in the NATURAL GOINGS of this CYCLE of nature,....
I'm sure we'd all be much more upset if there was global cooling.
It's not about being upset: if you could control the environment just by controlling your tempor,....hehehe, that would have been easy,....
Unlike most places, we Calgarians dont need air conditioners. I'd actually welcome global warming for hot weather during summers (warm winter would melt hockey rinks), cause I'm so deprived of it. The highest temperature every reached in calgary was like 96 or 97 fahrenheit - nothing compared to the 118 fahrenheit I walked through in New York a few years back.
Now that is one heck of a personal vieuw and totally subjective,....YOU would actually welcome global warming cause YOU are so deprived of it,....when are you humans going to learn that every place and everybody on this planet is connected with eachother and when will YOU humans even BEGIN to think accordingly: that is with reconsidderation for ALL the others,...you're laws are a weak meassurement instrument for global coörporation,...your global coöperations are a presentation for egocentric and selfisch behavior, where did they learn to behave like that: oh year in your shools and from your parents: that are 'accepting' the 'facts' cause that is just how their world is ruled,....
I'm more worried about ozone depletion. In 40 years, you wont be able to walk outside without sunscreen (of coarse most of you will be dead by then).
A contrast? There is a verry good point in making a contrast: but it shouldn't be a contrast between two evils,... (=Oil depletion and greenhouse gasses/ozone depletion can not to be seen apart from eachother: good 'try' tough). In 40 years we won't be able to walk outside whithout a sunscreen,.....hmmm,...ofcourse I could say to you now: don't worry: it's all natural and quiet 'normal' and 'natural' but I will speciffically NOT do so!!!
Most of us will be dead? Didn't you humans learn about how you ALL live on in your ofspring,.... Human (industrial) culture does not compute with the ways of nature (execpt those last standing tribes, not longer hidden by the wilderness tough, since their isn't practically much wilderness left for them to live in) and does not match standard recuirements for LONG TERM survival in this specific setting of world ordonnance,....
Oh and BTW my province has enough oil for the world to last on until something like 2050, so dont be worrying about that 2032, success machine.
year: but that's no point : you're province has enough maby, but even if they don't claim your provinces provisions, the oil of the world is no longer WITHIN the planet: making world-tektonic-plates *CRACK* causing mayor problem earthquakes (together with some more underground atomic explosive 'punching' of the world) : it's like taking all the 'wet' out of the copulation: no more lubricants to glide smothly the sinergy of communion of astral, universal communication, no more transponding accordingly to those rules and goings of the healty ways of the world,...... plus: when there's no more OIL it will be more difficult and more expensive to gain PLASTICS: and PLASTICS I can tell you : are of an icreddible importance for space-travel (shielding ect,...) Again: that problems tend to occur and that they rise to occasions like these is indeed still a 'natural' process: but it's not so healty to keep on thinking it's alright and that nothing has to change: or presuming that if anything needs to be changed: that 'they' change the way of the individuals making them believe that THEY are the biggest cause for the problem thus reaching two goals at the same time: drawing the focus of the problem away from it's origin, acctually transferring it, to antoher (much less) related subject >the individual, believe me: if that would be helpfull to solve the root and the CAUSE of the problem: it would be already been solved(a lie inbetween two truths) and on the other hand: making that same humans (indiviuals as well as whole societies) dependent upon products that cause even more mayhem to the evironment merely by production alone,...
it's truth that thinking goes before action: but it's the action that is undertaken is not always accordingly planned for, even action is undertaken to enshure that the right action is not being implemented as a solution: often it is but merely a 'patch' on the wound,......of Gaia,....(if you're familiar with the concept now)
believe me this: this of all things is certainly not a individual 'attact' of some sort or kind: so don't take this personall: but your vieuws are incorporating the lives and faiths of other human beings,...so it most be corrected,...not in a way of good versus evil: but progressive: from good: to better: and then eventually best,....that is the way it should be going,.....
Often humans are short-sightened : but it's the duty of every entity to correct the 'wrongs' and make them right,...that is:
The big structural evironmental issues should be subjected to confindings that are learned (and thus: implemented) by sience, and those dicisions should not be made by politics but by the obediance for the sustainabillity for enduring and long term life,....AND IT CERTAINLY IS NO SOLUTION TO SAY : WE ALL DIE SO WHAT DOES IT MATTERS,......(shame on them shortsightened, criminally ignorant human beigns).
Thx
:bugeye:
Eman Resu
05-02-02, 10:45 PM
Question:
What would a human better survive - an ice age or severe global warming? I figure that we could survive an ice age since we have the propensity to produce enormous quantities of methane (beans) and we have many thermal devices (military) which could keep us warm.
Maybe it won't matter.
Were not being fooled into believing how much oil we have. I have a friend, infact, whose father is involved in the oil industry. From what I've heard, there coming out with more and more advanced methods for getting the oil from the oil sands or what not. He's an insider so I think he'd know. Canada does have the largest oil fields in the world, although much of these are coastal or way too far north to be feasable right now.
Companies are investing many billion of dollars into our oilsands because it's become much more lucrative than ever. Its highly recoverable and quite plentiful.
And I'd also like to apologize to anyone cough (fukushi, northwind) cough, if I've hurt their overly fragile feelings with my selfish motives towards global warming.
I do know what it is, and how it occurs. And really, who is naive enough to believe that global warming is just gonna cause nicer summers? I also know that cars don't grow in trees (tries in fukishi's spelling). But if anyone has any problems with global warming, then they should be ashamed to travel on anything other than their bike, or feet.
-Fukishi, cars do not run on jet feul. If they did, I'm sure mine would run for a year on a tank 'o that super duper premium. They use jetfuel on jets because regular unleaded isnt powerful enough and planes would require a grossly larger volume.
I've spoken out about my selfish motives on an off note, not one ignoring the wellbeing of southern people.
But ozone depletion is MUCH more serious than any global warming. By the time it might become a problem, new clean energies will emerge, as they are beggining to, and feasability would not be an issue.
Originally posted by Elbaz
-Fukishi, cars do not run on jet feul. If they did, I'm sure mine would run for a year on a tank 'o that super duper premium. They use jetfuel on jets because regular unleaded isnt powerful enough and planes would require a grossly larger volume.
Not quite. Jet fuel has the same energy density but higher flash point (not as flamable as gasoline). Jet fuel is Kerosine.
Ref: http://imartinez.etsin.upm.es/dat1/eCombus.htm
A friend of mine just returned from a visit to his homeland in India. He said that in the last twenty years, average temperature has gone up by 5 degrees in April. A lot of older people are having heatstrokes. (Temp yesterday was 99/80 and it is only beginning of May !)
I wish we had that kinda wheather in Calgary right now. Except for the heat strokes, it'd be kinda cool.
Its snowing right now:(
We got some wild weather up here.... we reached a high of about 70 and now were snowing, coming into an overnight low of 15 (for all you Americans who hate metric :D )
70 is an abnormal high for this time of year, and 15 is an abnormal low.......I wish I were in India right now.
People who are used to low temperature in the winter can survive lows in summer. But if the highs go higher than 100 - life becomes uncomfortable for the elderly. Their blood pressure rises. Those who have heart problems could literally die from it. Between 100 and 120 range with a humidity of over 80% - it is very uncomfortable. Once I moved from Utah (a cold climate) to Arizona (hot climate) in the January. While, I was running around in short sleeves, everyone was bundled up. Then the summer came. My skin felt like it was going to catch fire. It took the following summer for the body to adjust to the high temperatures. After a few years, we moved to Ohio (cold climate). The first winter was not bad in contrast to my first summer in Arizona....
Lesion42
05-03-02, 10:56 AM
I live in Maine, and our snowbanks are no longer 14-footers in the winter. Kind of sad, really. Snow is fun.
Fukushi
05-03-02, 06:52 PM
.
You consider ohio a cold climate?????
You consider Utah a cold climate?????
If you could see outside my window right now, the first thing you'd notice is the snow. It's about 20 fahrenheit.....I can only take so much winter......
I'll admit its tough on the elderly, but hypothetically, it's alot more fun to bask in a warm summer than a cold winter (or spring). Humidity here isnt a problem either. Usually around 10%.
We'll, my point is, you dont know what you got until you dont got it. I consider Utah and Ohio tropical compared to my neck o the woods. But I guess the same would apply to me.....
Fukushi
05-04-02, 05:53 PM
If you could see outside my window right now
Well eeh,....hehehe: you should look beyond the tip of your nose,...in this case: not only limit your vision to that wich you have from looking out of the window,...
What I'm saying is: you should devellop, or try to devellop a totallity image,...envision the whole world: not just the sight you have from your window,...
What I'm pointing out here is for everybody to understand,...not just for you,....so don't take it too personal,...(warning).
Thx
:bugeye:
I think our weather is mainly sun driven,& the weather changes over the years because of it.
There are a lot of people making a lot of money out of global warming,so is in there interest to blame man.
Less than 1% of CO2 in the atmosphere is made by man!
Fukushi
05-04-02, 09:52 PM
How dare you come up with a Lie like that!
If the sun went out there would be no weather!
& if you think I am wrong about the less than 1% CO2 what figure do you have??
I got my less than 1% figure from a documentary on BBC 1,where they were asking scientists,& that was the figure they quoted!
:D
I think you will find the latest thinking on this is,that the Gulf stream melts the ice at the pole,& when the ice has decrease the gulf stream stops flowing, & a new ice age starts.Then after years the opposite happens.
while the stream melts the ice the temp rises for a while,until the new ice age starts.
Again as seen on BBC TV
:)
Fukushi
05-05-02, 11:11 AM
just to give you an example of how politicians are at the finger-tips of the lobby's,...in the name of envirionment and in the name of doing the right thing,... showing an absolute lack of fantasy or imagination not even the slightest coöperation with some envirionmental groups are considdered,...what a shame,....these politicians should not be alowed to fulfill their electoral period: the prove not to be capable.
February 9, 2000 Radioactive Water Leaked from Garoņa Nuclear Plant--Again. The Garoņa nuclear plant in the province of Burgos again has leaked low-level radioactive water. The leak, caused by a faulty valve, is part of the structural problems facing the nuclear plant built in the 1960s. Besides the faulty valve, the nuclear plant has severe cracks in its primary cooling system. It is now known that the Garoņa's reactor built in the 1960's, have serious defects in primary circuit welds. Spain's ruiling Popular Party this summer extended the power companies' license for exploitation of nuclear resources for 10 more years. Navarre's local governments and parliament have asked Madrid to close the Garoņa nuclear plant. However, last November, Spain's Environment Minister Isabel Tocino made political waves by announcing that increasing nuclear power output might come part of the state's climate change policy. In a paper presented to the parliament, the minister said upgrading nuclear resources was one way Spain could meet its Kyoto protocol commitments. Tocino's suggestion provoked outrage among environmental groups who accused her of being a "mouthpiece" for the nuclear lobby.
if you have money and power enough you can make the people even believe that they should stop shitting: because it polutes the air: thus : it's them being the source for global warming,...Things like acid rain,globalwarming, holes in the ozone layer,rising of the ocean due to the melting of the polar ice caps are contributing to the destruction of our earth,but the general public are doing very little to stop it
now this may sound a bit laughable at the end but: Global warming is caused by too much greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere causing an overly strong greenhouse effect. Humans are doing this by releasing too many of these gasses into the air.(I've just farted again!!sorry,...:)) Some of the main gasses we release are carbon dioxide,methane and once again CFC's.The extra CO2(carbon dioxide)comes from the burning of fossil fuels.Many or most factories burn fossil fuels and release huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Also many countries are burning enormous expansess of trees, unintentially,or otherwise.This practise not only destroys plant and wildlife,but in burning these trees,it creates huge amounts of CO2 and at the same time removes trees-some of the most important CO2 absorbers on earth. Methane is another greenhouse gase that we are releasing into the air. Methane is created by the rotting of organic matter and a lot of it is coming from human waste dumps.Also a lot of methane is coming from cattle breaking wind.A single cow releases about 73,000 litres of the gas a year and the world's cattle,altogether releases a total of about 73 million tonnnes of methane into the air.
The 1985 report of the discovery of an "ozone hole" over Antarctica focused attention on the idea that humans can have a significant impact on the global environment. This discovery, along with evidence that ozone is being lost at nearly all latitudes outside the tropics, has prompted much research into the causes of ozone depletion and the biological effects of increased ultraviolet radiation exposure.
The ozone layer is under threat from the various chemicals we use that produce in their turn even other and even more powerfull chemicals. When CFC's reach the ozone layer they are hit by UV ray's which makes them release chlorine.This chlorine reacts with the ozone,breaking it up into different forms of oxygen. The chlorine remains unchanged so in keeps reacting with more ozone, destroying a large amount of it in a short space of time.CFC's can remain in the atmosphere for up to 100 years!!!
CFC's have taken there toll in the Antartic An enormous floating ice shelf in Antarctica that has existed since the last Ice Age 12,000 years ago collapsed with staggering speed during one of the warmest summers on record there
the ice shelf had persisted through previous climate changes well before civilization began altering the environment
``It's a profound event,'' said geologist Christina Hulbe of Portland State University. ``This ice shelf has endured many climate oscillations over many thousands of years. Now it's gone.''
``We're seeing a very rapid and profound response by the ice sheet to a warming that's been around for just a few decades,'' said Ted Scambos of the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado.
``We knew what was left would collapse eventually, but the speed of it is staggering,'' said David Vaughan, a glaciologist at the British Antarctic Survey. ``Hard to believe that 500 million billion tons of ice sheet has disintegrated in less than a month.''
Previous measurements showed the Antarctic Peninsula has warmed an average of more than 4 degrees Fahrenheit during the past half-century, a rate that is as much as five times faster than the global average!!!
In 1995, when Larsen A broke off, the summer melt had persisted for 80 days, about 20 days longer than average.
The next portion of the ice shelf is known as Larsen C. It is losing stability and could suffer the same fate in the coming years if the warming trend continues, researchers said.
``Other ice shelves are closer to the breaking point than we previously thought,'' Scambos said. ``Breakups in some other areas, such as the Ross Ice Shelf, could lead to increases in ice flow off the Antarctic and cause sea level to rise.''
Outdoor activities will become almost non existant as the sun does serious damage to our skin in a short space of time.Most of the earth would be out of bounds because radiation levels will be too high to sustain life. Land mass will be smaller and many major cities flooded due to melting of the polar ice caps (remember the floods in China: Flood facts
More than 14 million people have lost their homes to the ever-rising waters of the Yangtze and Songhua rivers.
The Songhua and other rivers in China's north-east are expected to reach their highest levels this century.
One in five of China's population has experienced the floods at first hand as civilians joined soldiers waist deep in water trying to repair flood defences.
August , 1998
Floods in India 12 August 2000
A wave of floods has killed hundreds of people in the Indian states of Himachal Pradesh, Assam, West Bengal and Bihar as well as neighboring south Asian countries, for the second time that year. While the floods have wreaked havoc, destroying countless homes and exposing millions of people to famine and disease, India's Bharatiya Janatha Party (BJP)-led government has again demonstrated its callous disregard for the fate of masses of ordinary people.
According to reports on August 10, more than 300 people have been killed and over five million made homeless in the north and northeast of India, as well as in Bhutan, Nepal, and Bangladesh. But these figures, which are regarded as conservative, are expected to increase as ongoing rain worsens flooding in coming days.
Can you picture yourself HOMELESS? I didn't think so: well: I CAN,..
Floods Devastate India's Orissa State July 19, 2001
Floods caused by unusually heavy monsoon rains over the past week have swept through 7,000 Indian villages in the state of Orissa. The raging floods have killed at least 32 people, who were either carried away by the swirling waters or buried in collapsed houses, according to CNN. Red Cross volunteers and India military forces are rushing to bring humanitarian relief to millions who are marooned or in shelters.
"These floods are particularly bad. The Mahanadi River has nearly 50 percent more water than normal and it could rise even further," said Hrushikesh Harichandan, coordinator of the Indian Red Cross flood emergency operation in Orissa.
Some 312,000 hectares of crops have been devastated by the floods, ironically, in a region that was suffering from drought prior to this year's monsoons.
Flash floods have also hit the neighboring state of Chattisgarh following the release of water from the Hirakud dam in Orissa
Orissa is still struggling to recover from the devastating cyclone that left at least 10,000 dead and hundreds of thousands homeless in 1999. "Most of the victims [of the current flooding] are survivors of the cyclone of 1999," said Rabi Ratna Das, secretary of the Orissa branch of the Indian Red Cross.
Floods and landslides have also brought devastation to South Korea In South Korea, flooding in Seoul and surrounding areas has caused 62 deaths since last weekend. According to local media, about one third of the deaths were due to electrocution as people walked by street lamps on flooded streets.
The Korea Times reported that floodwaters had submerged 60,000 houses and 2,000 hectares of farmland, causing up to 97 billion won ($74.5 million) in damages.
Sept. 8, 2000 -- A NASA spectrometer has detected an Antarctic ozone "hole" (what scientists call an "ozone depletion area") that is three times larger than the entire land mass of the United States - the largest such area ever observed.
The "hole" expanded to a record size of approximately 28.3 million square kilometers on Sept. 3, 2000. The previous record was approximately 27.2 million square km on Sept. 19, 1998.
Because ultraviolet radiation is damaging to DNA--a vital component of living material--you should avoid unnecessary exposure to high levels of it. Take precautions in summer by wearing a sunhat, useing protective creams and building and wearing your cosmic ray deflector...:)
Eventually human leaders will realise that there is no hope for 'them' (the rich) on earth and 'they' will have to move to another planet,most probably Mars.(leaving the rest of us behind to sufficate) Unfortunately for them : if our environment's health keeps declining at the rate it is now,earth will not be sufficient to sustain life before the technology is capable enough to sustain live on Mars,or any other planet.
http://www.ciesin.org/docs/011-464/011-464.html
http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/info/ozone_anim.html
http://www.awi-bremerhaven.de/MET/Neumayer/ozone.html
http://toms.gsfc.nasa.gov/index.html
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/ozone_city001005.html
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/ice001005.html
http://www.eurogeosurveys.org/projects/GestcoWeb/project/definition.html
My Gov loves Global warming.They tax us heavily, using it as an excuse.They do nothing to help the environment with the money they get from this.
Sorry, but I cannot read all you wrote,I would be brain dead by the end of it.So I just skimmed through it.
What has the ozone hole got to do with Global warming then????
:confused: :confused:
You have been reading too many green newsletters, and are ignoring too much of real science. I should not be answering your post --it is so naive-- but I have some free time left today, and I am in the mood for banging away at the keyboard.
<b>Quote:</b> <i>"... of how politicians are at the finger-tips of the lobby's,..."</i>
You should consider that <b>these too are lobbies:</b> The Club of Rome, Greenpeace, WWF (Worldwide Fund for Nature), World Resources Insitute, Nature Conservancy, Wilderness Society, Conservation International, Earth Island Society, Planned Parenthood, National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), The Worldwatch Institute, The Audubon Society, The Sierra Club, Rachel.org, (and about 8,000 more) funded by Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon, Ritchfield Oil, Amoco, Chevron, Conoco, Philip Petroleum, Arco, British Petroleum Oil, DuPont, Ford Foundation, The Carnegie Foundation, the MacArthur Foundation, The Rockefeller Brothers Fund, (and more than 500 "charitable" foundations and huge corporations) that makes more harm to the environment (people are part of it) than common polluters.
<b>Quote:</b> <i>February 9, 2000 Radioactive Water Leaked from Garoņa Nuclear Plant--Again. The Garoņa nuclear plant in the province of Burgos again has leaked low-level radioactive water." </i>
Low level? What do you consider low- or high-level radioactive? Specify that in grays, rads, millirems, milliSieverts, picoCuries, or whater radiation measure unit you like. Until we know the level of radioactivity, your information remaind as a "gossip". By the way, waters in the thermal baths (hot springs) around the world are in the range of 1,500 picoCuries/liter, and natural gas used for cooking in the English city of Bath has <b>33,650 picoCuries/liter</b>. Compare this to the high level for radon gas set by the EPA of <b>4 picoCuries/liter</b>. After that, they should take "remediation measures". The EPA must tell people living in Bath that they should move fast out of town! And think about those poor people who goes to Bath for curing their ailments! Know something? They actually get cured. The world is full of mysterious things. (The campaign against Garoña nuclear station is promoted by Greenpeace. Nuclear paranoia at its best).
<b>Quote:</b> <i>"Because ultraviolet radiation is damaging to DNA--a vital component of living material--you should avoid unnecessary exposure to high levels of it. Take precautions in summer by wearing a sunhat, useing protective creams and building and wearing your cosmic ray deflector... "</i>
Somebody sold you rotten meat... and you bought it without smelling it first. You should go back to your physics textbooks (I wonder if you ever saw one). UV damages DNA in the UV-C range of the spectrum (286 nm to 40 nm) which is almost completely filtered by oxygen molecules (O2) high in the stratosphere, as ozone has not the potential to filter UV-C. You might find <b>infinitesimal</b> amounts of UV-C in the top of the Everest (about 9000 meters high), but not much lower than that.
Using a hat in summer is a good advise, but wearing sunblocking creams is not. Read this an see why: <A HREF=http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/PlaySafe.html><b>Play It Safe: Take Sun at Noon"</b></A>
<b>Quote</b>.<i>"Global warming is caused by too much greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere causing an overly strong greenhouse effect."</I>
The main greenhouse gas is <b>water vapor</b>, that accounts for about 95% of the heat retaining capacity of Earth's atmosphere. CO2 takes just 3,5% of its capacity. The rest is accounted for by the remaining gases (Argon, Krypton, Neon, Methane, etc, and even CFCs.) But the concentration of CFCs is so infinitesimal that they are just a drop in the Pacific Ocean.
<b>Quote:</b> <i>"The extra CO2 (carbon dioxide) comes from the burning of fossil fuels. Many or most factories burn fossil fuels and release huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.</i>
So what? The amount of CO2 released by human activities is just as somebody posted previously: <b>just 1%.</b> Even if we stopped completely our industrial activities, that 1% does not make any difference.
<b>Quote:</b> <i>"... but in burning these trees, it creates huge amounts of CO2 and at the same time removes trees --some of the most important CO2 absorbers on earth ... Methane is another greenhouse gas that we are releasing into the air."</i>
You keep buying rotten meat, Do you have something wrong with your smell sense? The <b>whole vegetal mass of Earth</b> produces just 3.5% to 5.00% of the oxygen produced every year in our wonderful planet. This means that trees, plants, crops, golf lawns, and anything green covering Earth's surface just takes about 5% of the CO2 from the atmosphere. The great producers of oxygen (they take it from CO2 in the air) are the trillions of tiny creatures known as "phytoplankton", swimming in the ocean blue...
<b>Quote:</b> <i>"The 1985 report of the discovery of an "ozone hole" over Antarctica focused attention on the idea that humans can have a significant impact on the global environment."</i>
That's a lie, but <b>it is not your lie.</b> It's that habit of yours of buying rotten meat. The infamous "Ozone Hole" was "discovered" --in the exact same way that Colombus "discovered" America-- by Gordon M.B. Dobson, the bristish scientist, back in 1957 during the first really scientific studies made on the ozone layer. That happened during the "International Geophysical Year Campaign", and the hole was also noticed --on the other side of the Antarctic continent by the French scientists at the Dumont D'Urville scientific station. Worse yet: the recorded decrease of ozone levels then, in 1957, have not been reached in recent decades. The ozone hole --as America-- have been there since Earth gained its atmosphere, or at least, since the terrestrial axis got into its present position.
<b>Quote:</b> <i>"This discovery, along with evidence that ozone is being lost at nearly all latitudes outside the tropics, ..." </i>
I'll quote what Lic. Victoria Tafuri, head of the Ozone Measuring Dept. at the National Meteorological Observatory in Villa Ortúzar, Buenos Aires stated to the press, after she came back from Antarctica in 1997: <i>"We have been measuring ozone levels over Buenos Aires (that is, outside the tropics) for the last 25 years, and found those levels have been normal for that period."</i> And Isidro Orlansky and Ernesto Martinez, from the Physics Lab at Buenos Aires National University, found that UV-B radiation passing through an ozone "mini-hole" over Ushuaia, Tierra del Fuego, was delivering barely 100-150 watts/m2, while at the same time there were falling over Buenos Aires 300 watts/m2.
<b>Quote:</B> <i>"The chlorine remains unchanged so in keeps reacting with more ozone, destroying a large amount of it in a short space of time.CFC's can remain in the atmosphere for up to 100 years!!!"</I>
That's a fairytale. But even if it were true: So what? CFCs never reach the altitude of the stratosphere where the strong UV-C rays could dissociate them. CFCs have been found at its highest point at about 30 kms, and UV-C radiation is almost gone by 45 km. Add to this that concentrations of CFCs there are measured in the <b>trillion per parts"</b> range, because the overwhelming majority of CFCs remain at ground floor, even deep in the oceans. They are 4,5 times heavier than air. Atom by atom, CFCs are heavier than iron!.
<b>Quote:</b> <i>"An enormous floating ice shelf in Antarctica that has existed since the last Ice Age 12,000 years ago collapsed with staggering speed during one of the warmest summers on record there" ... "``We're seeing a very rapid and profound response by the ice sheet to a warming that's been around for just a few decades,'' said Ted Scambos... "Hard to believe that 500 million billion tons of ice sheet has disintegrated in less than a month.'' </i>
Better believe it or bust! When someting collapses --as the Twin Towers did-- things happen quite fast. Now you see it, now you don't. The collapse of the Larsen and other ice shelf was due to their huge weight, that provokes the breaking of the "balconies", and their fall into the sea underneath. I wonder if you knew that "ice barriers" are mostly hanging --not floating?. They are being "eaten" (or melted) from below, by the warmer waters where they formed.
Glaciers move over the Antarctic land and keep moving advancing into the sea. The warmer waters melt the botton of the high barrier forming a perfect balcony. This balcony is pushed forward by the glacier's advance and after some thousand years they are so large, so long and wide, that the ice finally gives up. The balcony breaks in some points and collapses to the sea. Nothing strange here. Nature doing its work.
The barriers didn't <b>melt</b>at the sides. They broke off because the ice that had been forming over them for centuries, or millenia, finally broke the resistance of the ice in the borders of the shelfs. Just physics. Mechanical forces at work. Warming had nothing to do with it, simply because <b>there have not been ANY warming in Antartica for the past 70 years!</B>
<b>Quote:</b> <i>"Previous measurements showed the Antarctic Peninsula has warmed an average of more than 4 degrees Fahrenheit during the past half-century, a rate that is as much as five times faster than the global average!!!</i>
More rotten meat. Check satellite measurements at <b>ALL</b> Artic and Antarctic scientific stations: <A HREF=http://www.john.daly.com/stations/stations.htm><b>Wheather Stations of the World</b></A>. Make your comparisons, make your homework.
<b>Quote:</b> <i>"Land mass will be smaller and many major cities flooded due to melting of the polar ice caps."</I>
Rotten meat once more. Artic ice is <b>floating</b> on the Artic Ocean. Even if melted down completely it would not add a millimeter to the ocean levels. Physics again. But ice in the Artic has not melted an inch since scientific studies began on the subject. Some years there is more ice, some years there is less ice. Natural variations. If the "warming" had melted the ice, the warming would have prevented the formation and growing again of the Artic ice cap. (and Greenland's too...).
<b>Quote:</b> <i>"(remember the floods in China?): Flood facts: More than 14 million people have lost their homes to the ever-rising waters of the Yangtze and Songhua rivers."</I>
Yes, I remember the floods in China. I don't know if you do, or if you ever knew... During the 2,200 years, from the beginning of the Han Dynasty to the end of the Qing Dynasty in 1991, <b>there have been 214 floods</b>, and average of one every 10 years. In this century there have been five severe floods. Combined floods in the Yangtze and Han rivers in 1911, is said to have claimed hundred of thousands of lives. The great flood in 1931, <b>took the lives of 145,000 people</b>, inundated an area the size of New York State, submerged more than 3 million hectares of farmland and <b>destroyed 108 million houses</b>. Four years later, the flood of 1935, <b>142,000 people were killed</b>. Now floods seem to be much "lighter", according to the data you provide to scare us:
<b>quote:</b> <i>"According to reports on August 10, more than <b>300 people</b> have been killed and over <b>five million made homeless</b> ... The Korea Times reported that floodwaters had submerged 60,000 houses and 2,000 hectares of farmland, causing up to 97 billion won ($74.5 million) in damages. "</i>
Well, put into mathematical terms: 300 deaths < 145,000 deaths, 60,000 houses < 108 million houses, and 2,000 hectares < 3 million hectares. Today floodings are child's play.
<b>Quote:</b> "... if our environment's health keeps declining at the rate it is now, earth will not be sufficient to sustain life before the technology is capable enough to sustain live on Mars, or any other planet."
You have been reading too much of Paul Erhlich and Lester Brown. It is time for you to start checking other sources as:
<A HREF=http://www.junkscience.com>Junkscience.com</A>,
Or maybe: <A HREF=http://www.lewrockwell.com><b>http://www.lewrockwell.com</b></A>
Or this really good one: <A HREF="http://www.john-daly.com/"><b>Still Waiting for the Greenhouse</b></A>
Or, why not an update to : <A HREF="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/ENGLISH.html"><b>Myths and Frauds in Ecology</b></A>
Or really serious climate science: <A HREF="http://www.co2science.org/">Science and Climate Org.</b></A>
That's enough for a starter on sound science learning.
Your right,but to him its a religion,as it is with other green's,so it does not matter what science proves they will still think they are right!
Every one wants to be a do good'er so they jump on any band wagon!
He will probably pretend he has not seen this!
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Yeah! We are walking down a lonely road. Religion and science don't not mix well. Ask Galileo Galilei or Giordano Bruno. :bugeye: :( :(
<center><font size=4 color=red><b>In Antarctica, No Warming Trend </b></font><font size=3><b>
Scientists Find Temperatures Have<br>Gotten Colder in Past Two Decades</b></font>
_____Special Report_____ </center>
By Guy Gugliotta
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 14, 2002; Page A02
The Earth may be in the midst of a planet-wide warming cycle, but in a startling departure from global trends, scientists have found that temperatures on the Antarctic continent have fallen steadily for more than two decades. Researcher Peter Doran said scientists working in the McMurdo Dry Valleys of east Antarctica have found temperatures dropping at a rate of 1.2 degrees Fahrenheit per decade since 1986, and have observed similar downward trends across the continent since 1978.
Doran stressed that although scientists could not explain the falling temperatures, the research <i>"does not change the fact that the planet has warmed up on the whole. The findings simply point out that Antarctica is not responding as expected."</i> The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has concluded that there has been a net rise in global air temperature of 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit per decade in the 20th century, a calculation that includes the Antarctic data. Doran also warned that <i>"you don't want to overstate the effects"</i> of the cooling trend, because any rise in sea level caused by global warming this century is expected to come from thermal expansion of existing oceans and not from any theoretical melting of the southern ice cap.
<i>"I'd be very careful with this,"</i> added Michael Oppenheimer, chief scientist for Environmental Defense. <i>"My general view has been that there's simply not enough data to make a broad statement about all of Antarctica."</i>
In a paper published yesterday in the online version of the journal Nature, Doran and other members of the National Science Foundation's Longterm Ecological Research team presented data gathered during years of research in the Dry Valleys near McMurdo Sound. The Dry Valleys are a perpetually snow-free mountainous desert of chill, arid soils, bleak, bedrock outcroppings and ice-covered lakes. Microscopic invertebrates, mostly nematodes, make up a fragile ecosystem. Maintenance of this marginal environment depends on an annual period of four to six weeks of above-freezing temperatures during the southern summer, Doran said. The relative warmth causes melt water from hillside glaciers to cascade downward in seasonal arroyos that feed the lakes.
<i>"A lot of the people [co-authors] in the paper have been working in the valleys since the mid-'80s, and at first it seemed that lake levels were going up,"</i> said Doran, a hydrometeorologist from the University of Illinois at Chicago. <b><i>"But two or three years ago, when we were waiting for the big summers, we noticed that they didn't come,"</i></b> he added. <i>"We were thinking that warm summers were the norm, and we were saying, 'It's going to get back to normal,' but it never did."</i>
So the researchers began looking at data collected since the project's inception, and found that temperatures had been dropping, not rising, since 1986, with the effect most pronounced in summer and autumn. Glacial ice wasn't melting, streams weren't flowing, lakes were shrinking and microorganisms were disappearing. Next, Doran said, the scientists looked at data collected since 1966 from permanent installations throughout the Antarctic. Previous studies had shown overall warming, but the researchers found that these calculations relied disproportionately on readings from the Antarctic Peninsula, the continent's northernmost piece of land and home of the greatest number of scientific outposts.
The peninsula projects into the south Atlantic and "seems to be part of the regular climate tendency" toward global warming, Doran said, while the Antarctic continent is ringed by a cold water current that isolates the landmass in its own ecosystem. When the researchers corrected for the peninsular distortion, they found that Antarctica as a whole <b>had gotten considerably colder</b>. <i>"Temperatures were rising between 1966 and 1978,"</i> Doran said, but then they started to fall and have continued falling ever since. Doran said the researchers cannot explain why this has happened. They do know that temperatures in the Dry Valleys get warmer when the wind blows and when there are clouds in the sky.
He explained that as winds roll downhill off the Antarctic plateau into the Dry Valleys, the air compresses and heats up as a result, an effect similar to the Chinook winds of the western United States. At the same time, relatively warm summer winds gathering speed over the ocean bring warmer air in from the coast to promote the thaw, he said. Wind generally brings clouds, he added, which appear to add to the warming effect.
Recently, however, <i>"we're getting a decrease in winds from both directions,"</i> Doran said, and, perhaps as a consequence, temperatures in the Dry Valleys are dropping. <i>"It's clearly connected to the winds, but what's controlling the decrease in the winds is not clear."</i> Also, he noted, still air in the Dry Valleys <b>tells researchers nothing about why temperatures are dropping on the plateau:<i><font color=red> "We've sort of hit a point where we're a little confused,"</font></b></i> he said.
Š 2002 The Washington Post Company
-------------------------
Summing up, <b>some "media-prone" scientists know nothing about climatology</b>, when it comes to explain <b>why the Earth is cooling instead of warming as computers predicted.</b> (or prophecized?) They should resource to Jeremiah, Hezekiah or Ezekiel. It's a pitty they died long ago... What a laugh! LOL!</b>
rain of walrus
05-16-02, 11:03 AM
we're about 100-500 years away from another Ice Age. Geohistorically speaking. And I worry about our Oceans a lot more than our Ozone. If youve studied marine biology you would know 75% of what happens on this planet is caused by Oceanic turmoil. As the planet warms, the Oceans will most certainly seek equilibrium. when they achieve it, convectional currents will bombard the poles and The New Ice Age will begin with a giant freezing latice of gulf-streams headed directly at the equator. This will do terrible things as the doldrums are turned into "hell on Earth". Those unfortunate enough to be alive will witness the ambient temperatures of the doldrums hyper-fluxuate; -50 one day, 120 another. Nature will then raise the ante with the largest undersea Earthquakes anyone has ever seen due to massive convectional displacement and this will cause apocalyptic sized tsunamis that will not only flood continents but will begin to freeze and cover the coasts with sheets of ice a mile deep.
so no, the government cannot save us from another Ice Age. only a lucky few will survive to further spread our seed.
hopefully by then we will be on Mars, Moon and possibly Alpha Centauri.
Some people don't know what they are talking about. By the way, if CFCs are broken down by UV rays, then we should make more of them, the radaition absorbed would counteract teh ozone hole:D . I make a suggestion that is required on the popsci forums: quote a paragraph from an article, and provide a link to it. This saves space in the thread.
so no, the government cannot save us from another Ice Age. only a lucky few will survive to further spread our seed.
Our planet is filled with people on almost every land mass. So, if there are pockets of land free from a mile thick ice, may be humans will continue albeit to the stone age.
But in 500 years, we could have space cities a la 3001-space odyssey...use the ground for water and metals...
If the whales and plants survived millions of years - there may be ways...
Kmguru, Patagonia and the Amazon basin (about twice the size of the US) have less than 1 person by square km. Add to that regions most Asia (Siberia, most of Africa, the Middle East, Mongolia, and Australia) and you see the Earth is barely populated. Divide the Earth's surface by population and will find out the unhabitants/km2 figure. (Remember that Europe has about 400 unhabitants/km2).
if we apply the adequate technologies, those regions could be transformed into useful areas for populations. But greens will never allow this dream become true. :(
have less than 1 person by square km
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thats because they have all come here,but do not show on the figures ,because they have entered illegally!
:( :D :D
http://www.space.com/images/h_india_map_02.jpg
Satellite imagery being presented today shows that the great majority of the world's glaciers are melting at rates equal to or greater than long-established trends, including some that are receding at alarming and accelerating paces
.
Glacier changes in the next 100 years could significantly affect agriculture, water supplies, hydroelectric power, transportation, mining, coastlines, and ecological habitats, the research team predicts
According to a 2001 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, scientists estimate that surface temperatures could rise by 1.4°C to 5.8°C by the end of the century. The researchers have found a strong correlation between increasing temperatures and glacier retreat.
For the rest of the article: here (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/glacier_retreat_020529.html)
Apparently we had a mini ice age 200 years ago. So it is taking that long to melt the ice because of the way the sunlight interacts with ice and water. So if it was the result of the mini ice age, should not we blame the people 200 years ago that did some nasty stuff to themselves? :D
The bad news
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/crowley2000/crowley_fig6.jpg
Comparison of the GHG forcing response with six residuals determined by removing all forcing except GHG from the two different temperature reconstructions in Fig. 1. As in Fig.5, the three different estimates of solar variability were used to get one estimate of the uncertainty in the response. This figure illustrates that GHG changes can explain the 20th century rise in the residuals; +/-2 standard deviation lines (horizontal dashed lines) refer to maximum variability of residuals from Fig. 5A (inner dashes) and maximum variability (outer dashes) of the original pre-1850 time series (Fig 1). The projected 21st century temperature increase (heavy dashed line at right) uses the IPCC BAU scenario (the "so called IS92a forcing")(59) for both GHG and aerosols (sulfate and biomass burning, including indirect effects), and the model simulation was run at the same sensitivity (2.0 C for a doubling of CO2) as other model simulations in this article.
Ref: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/crowley.html
Here is a better picture from another source:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/milltemp/_fig1.gif
The problem is same data produces two different outcomes. One shows an exponential rise of temperature while the other shows a slight increase from the 1000 AD though marked increase from 1600-1700 mini iceage which should be natural. May be we are at the tail end of that mini ice age.
I think no one has a clue in this prediction methodology....
Here is my prediction:
http://www.kmci.net/images/temp.gif
gotanygum
06-06-02, 12:52 PM
from 3/28/2001:
"Japanese Scientists, Fishermen Say Global Warming Killing Sea of Japan - Catches Down 62% Over Last 10 Years as Warming Waters Shut Down Ocean Currents that Bring Nutrients to Surface Plankton; Sea's Failure Could be Model for Collapse of Rest of World's Oceans. "
...
"At CREAMS, the Centre for the Research of East Asian Marginal Seas, a joint research team of scientists from Japan, South Korea and Russia, has since 1993 accumulated enough data to confirm what the fishermen fear. They have been measuring the currents, salinity and oxygen levels up and down a stretch of water in the Sea of Japan. What they have found confirms their worst fears."
link at http://www.frim.gov.my/Hutanasli2/drjenny/Oceans%20and%20climate%20change.htm
is this a solid study?
is this a solid study?The link you provided didn't actually give the name of the study, but there is enough informatin to track down the origin of the study. I will check this "CReAM" project, and after some analysis and checkups I would be able to say something about its seriousness.
The web link also contained a second article (source CNN --that makes it suspicious) about the increased rate of CO2 absorption of phytoplanktons and algae (this has been noticed by many scientists, though), but tries to diminish the CO2 intake increase by surface plants, thing that has also been well established.
Lots of politics here... Most of the time, it is hard to tell when science leaves off and politics takes over.
<font color=red size=5><B>Australia Set to Reject Global Warming Treaty</B></font>
<B>DATE:</B> June 5, 2002
<B>BACKGROUND:</B> Reuters News Service reports that Australian Prime Minister John Howard said today his government will not ratify the Kyoto Treaty because of the economic impact it would have on jobs there. Howard said, "For us to ratify the protocol would cost us jobs and damage our industry." The Kyoto Treaty aims to cut worldwide emissions of greenhouse gases but provides exemptions to developing nations. President Bush has said he will not implement the treaty because of the harm it would do to the economy. The U.S. Senate passed a resolution 95-0 in 1997 that says the Senate will not ratify any treaty that would harm the U.S. economy or fails to require developing nations to reduce emissions.
<B>TEN SECOND RESPONSE:</B> Australia should be applauded for standing up to pressure from environmentalists and instead choosing to protect jobs for its people.
<B>THIRTY SECOND RESPONSE:</B> Like Australia, the U.S. has wisely chosen not to ratify this treaty because of the enormous burden it would impose on our economy. President Bush should be aware there are provisions in the Senate version of the energy bill that mirror the Kyoto Treaty and run contrary to his recently re-affirmed position on global warming policy.
<B>DISCUSSION:</B> The Kyoto Treaty, designed to cut worldwide greenhouse gas emissions, was signed in 1997 but never ratified by the U.S. Senate. For it to go into effect it must be ratified by nations producing at least 55 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. Just this week Japan ratified the treaty but European nations, Russia and Canada still have not ratified it. There is no enforcement mechanism to ensure compliance of the nations that sign the treaty.
Howard's government in Australia has said it favors a voluntary emissions reduction plan much like the one the Bush Administration has proposed in the United States.
<B>FOR MORE INFORMATION:</B> See <B><A HREF="http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoQuestionsAnswers.html">"Kyoto Questions and Answers"</A></B> or <B><A HREF="http://www.nationalcenter.org/Bonn2001.html">"Global Warming: Charges and Responses"</A></B>.
gotanygum
06-12-02, 01:03 AM
Good article, it is eye-opening.
Despite the catastrophist/liberal/etc image I seemed to have built up throughout many of my posts, I do wish to say, that it would certainly not be a good idea to implement a large volume of pollution stabilization strategies into all of society, in any intrusive, disorganized and/or imposed debilitating way, and any plan put forth should absolutely be reasonable and fairly taking economy and hard working people into account.
What seems to be the real question in my mind, is how long a time period does president Bush envision, for a plan he would approve of, to have layed out, in which to alleviate the various types [CO2, CO, NOx, SOx, toluene/xylene in petrol, etc. from industrial production, related health problems] specifically with regards to air pollution. I speak strictly in terms of industrially related pollution now, not of global warming.
Ill probably do a search on this tomorrow or something. Take care
The problem with our government is - they do not understand what a "in moderation" means. From our justice department to rules and regulations, everything is in extremes. A friend of mine was out of town when he got summons for a court appearance for the traffic ticket he has already paid. When he returned, they hauled him in on a Friday night so that he had to wait till Monday to straighten out the misunderstanding/mistake.
Now that we have a terrorist threat hanging over our head, hopefully the government would monitor air and water quality to keep it safe.
Industrial pollutions are a problem - but only in a chronic basis. If you inhale say Xylene for 2 to 3 days 2 to 3 times the government safety limit, you will develop lung problems. But if you do not inhale further - the problem will go away and the body will recover. The government should do research as to what is acceptable and what can be solved through technology. As it happens today, most refineries and chemical plants release chemicals to the atmosphre at night but the total amount is calculated based on a 24 hour period. Sometimes the industry complains and rightly so that technology is not available to manage certain pollutants. So, instead of making a ruling that one can not pollute using that item, there should be an infrastructure setup to solve those issues taking into account the population density and other effects in that particular area.
A holistic approach is the best way to solve these man made pollutions which sometimes cost society dearly. Unfortunately our government does not have too many smart people (they go to industry) nor does hire retired smart people to manage these issues.
So, what Bush will do is anybodies guess....
This debate over global warming tends to get out of hand because the baseline of beliefs isn't established, so let me ask some questions to establish what people believe here:
* Do you believe that the earth has periods of global warming and global cooling?
* If so, do you believe that the earth is currently in a period of global warming?
* Do you believe that severe global warming can occur in short periods of time (much less than 100 years)?
* If so, do you believe that the activities of man is and will be making this period of global warming much more severe?
* Do you believe that "runaway" global warming is a possibility (that is warming that is so severe and so fast that most life is wiped out before the earth can compensate)?
* Do you believe that severe global warming could have a very detrimental effect on a significant portion of life on the earth (including man)?
* Do you believe that global warming that results in signifcant death of the human population on earth would be a "good thing" or a "bad thing"?
* Do you believe that man should do something to curb or curtail its activities in order to control global warming?
Let the debate begin... :)
When you think about this,please do not forget that there are a lot of people making a good living out of global warming.
Put that in to your equation!
Originally posted by odin
When you think about this, please do not forget that there are a lot of people making a good living out of global warming. Put that in to your equation!
Hmmmm. So maybe I should add the following questions?
* Would large-scale efforts to reduce man's effect on global climate changes directly impact your lifestyle?
* If so, does that color your belief in the issue of global warming?
Ultimately, though, my original questions were intended to make it more apparent whether a particular debater was really making a reasonable judgement about the problem. For instance, a person who's maing a good living from global warming (eg. car manufacturers) would probably fall out near the beginning of my questions because they wouldn't believe in global warming. Those more inclined to believe would hopefully provide details on why they believe.
Unfortunately our government does not have too many smart people (they go to industry)...
How true. The CFR's are literally cobbled together from industry "best practices". They are a madhouse of sometimes working, sometimes of wholly inadequate practices. One such practice is the elimination of liquid Freon, used in water testing, to verify on site that a particular location is meeting the water quality standards required by the CFR's and EPA. The trouble with this is that at the time of the mandate there was no other, easy to accomplish test, that would fit the requirements of a wide variety of applications that the CFR's cover. Hence a "blind eye" has been turned towards the industries that still use Freon as a method of determining that they have met daily standards of water quality. Technology has caught up with the situation since. There are now other methods available to allow the testing of water but the expense to verify these requirements have went through the roof.
For those unaware of what the CFR's are, (Congressional Federal Regulations) they are the laws that all industries are required to meet to operate safely, protect people, and the environment. How rigidly they are enforced depends upon the size of the company, the inspector, and what is the hot item of the month from the inspection team.
Hey, nobody commented on my temperature projection graph....:(
gotanygum
06-13-02, 01:15 AM
On your graph, what is the main reason you think its getting colder?
As to your noticably drawn temperature increase, do you attribute that to regular solar flare fluctuations increase in the next decade alone, or human activity? I like the part when it is stabalized :)
http://www.lanl.gov/worldview/news/releases/archive/02-028.shtml
is the link process viable? Hmm...
Ideally you should be at -0.2. We are getting warmer because we were cooler during the mini ice age. The data from past 1000 years was run through a neural net with a process balance subprogram. The plot is really a crude one because I did not have the actual numbers from the last 1000 years which varies depending who collected them and averaged them. So I took the average from five different graphs.
I think Earth is trying to balance the temperature from the last mini ice age and getting warmer but will peak and then go down. I do not think, humans can provide that much heat capacity to make a dent on. On the otherhand if we do provide heat, then the peak will be slightly larger until it automatically goes down in a shorter cycle. The grapgh looks like a standard temperature controller for any industrial furnace or heat exchanger.
Originally posted by kmguru
I think Earth is trying to balance the temperature from the last mini ice age and getting warmer but will peak and then go down. I do not think, humans can provide that much heat capacity to make a dent on. On the otherhand if we do provide heat, then the peak will be slightly larger until it automatically goes down in a shorter cycle. The graph looks like a standard temperature controller for any industrial furnace or heat exchanger.
What is the mechanism that will kick in to cause the cool down when the Earth reaches this coming peak? Where will the heat go?
:confused:
through all oceans goes one giant stream. It goes in dirrection from north and all around the world to the antartica. when earth will get real hot, there will be too much fresh water in the worlds ocans - this will stop the mechanism from what the water from the deep down will stop to go up to the higher levels of the ocean, thus salt water won't any more evaporate from the ocean. These factors will stop the giant all ocean stream i.e. there will be no circulation of the warm/hot water. And because of this "only most brave people will live to the north of Birmingham" (discovery channel).
Most people just don't realise how much the circulation of the warm waters matter. Without the gulf stream weather in northen europe would have been a lot colder. And if all the mechanism stops , not only the gulf mainstream, then get prepered to the next ICEAGE.
The forst iceage appeared some 20m jears ago. Scientist think tht tht is because of some metiorite hit. maybe the one who destroyed the dinosaurs 65m years ago (it disballanced climate on all the planet and maybe it took 35m years to trigger the first iceage.)
From then on we have a rotation of long iceage periods and short warm periods. All our civilization appeared and is living in the latest warm age period.
We know of the rotation of iceages because of samples from the greenland ice and remains of plancton in deep deep ocean bed.
but I think we and our technology will survive the next iceage, I think tht we are more advanced and widespread thn the atlantis civilization (note_ancient sunken city by the coasts of india has been found. scientists estimate it to be atleast 15000-20000 years old, because of the water level).
edit to add-> scientists have found out tht the last iceage came into being in only a 10 year time period
Perhaps the same mechanism that created the ice age. I am not a planetary process engineer but I could become an expert if it is needed.
The continental plates do shift from time to time and this could be a mechanism to create a massive volcano which obscures the sunlight. Without heat input, the heat will dissipiate over time - a few hundred years. We have one volcano ready to pop west of Alaska (those little islands). This is a wild guess - better to ask the experts.
huummmmmmm, was I wrong , kmguru?
through all oceans goes one giant stream. It goes in dirrection from north and all around the world to the antartica. when earth will get real hot, there will be too much fresh water in the worlds ocans - this will stop the mechanism from what the water from the deep down will stop to go up to the higher levels of the ocean, thus salt water won't any more evaporate from the ocean. These factors will stop the giant all ocean stream i.e. there will be no circulation of the warm/hot water. And because of this "only most brave people will live to the north of Birmingham" (discovery channel).
Originally posted by kmguru
Perhaps the same mechanism that created the ice age. I am not a planetary process engineer but I could become an expert if it is needed.
The continental plates do shift from time to time and this could be a mechanism to create a massive volcano which obscures the sunlight. Without heat input, the heat will dissipiate over time - a few hundred years. We have one volcano ready to pop west of Alaska (those little islands). This is a wild guess - better to ask the experts.
So, from your graph, you're predicting a 400 year cycle of global warming with a peak of 1-2 degrees Fahrenheit above current temperature, correct? (Or did I misinterpret the graph?) You're also assuming there will be some major change (like an earthquake or volcano) about 200 years from now that will reverse the upward trend in temperature rather than a gradual shift, correct?
This doesn't sound catastrophic (although it won't be easy), but I guess the question is whether your timeframe and peak are correct.
:eek:
Originally posted by BatM
This doesn't sound catastrophic (although it won't be easy), but I guess the question is whether your timeframe and peak are correct.
I did not say it would be catastrophic. I am not a doomsday alarmist. However that temperature variation is based on mean global temperature which means, some areas, the temperature will be really high like 124 F in summer. Life will be unbearable on the heat side. The same swing the otherway like cold can be managed. In the tropical areas, they have to depend on the air conditioners etc. Older people will drop dead...
Because of the ascending curve at the base, without detail data it is difficult to predict the peak and time shift. But on average this is what it would look like. Most importantly, the temperature from 1300 AD till today is important to fit a simulation model for the peak - that may not be available.
Originally posted by kmguru
I did not say it would be catastrophic. I am not a doomsday alarmist.
Sorry, didn't mean to suggest that you were -- just that "catastrophy" is what comes to my mind when talking of "global warming".
Most importantly, the temperature from 1300 AD till today is important to fit a simulation model for the peak - that may not be available.
I would also think that more data from wider ranges of history are also important.
However, as they say in financial investment, "past history is no guarantee of future returns". So, to give your prediction weight, what I was looking for was an indication of what mechanism would be used to bring down the temperature. From there, the question was whether there would continue to be enough of the mechanism to make the global change (for instance, if the mechanism is tropical forest recycling of CO2 to O2, then how much forest would be necessary and would we have enough?).
What I didn't pay enough attention to was the timescale you were using. Your prediction is for a high around 2200 whereas many others seem to put the high (or, at least, intolerable levels) in the next 50-100 years. You're suggesting a (reasonably) steady increase whereas others are beginning to think it will be more exponential (for instance, see http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-04/uom-ewt041102.php).
Thus, my point about the correctness of your prediction. :)
quote: <font color=blue>"* Do you believe that the earth has periods of global warming and global cooling?"</font>
<B>YES</B>. (You should have said :<b>"natural periods or cycles"</b>)
quote: <font color=blue>* If so, do you believe that the earth is currently in a period of global warming? </font>
<B>YES</B>, it has been warming -naturally- since the end of the <B>Little Ice Age</B> about 1860. It cooled again from 1940 to 1962 -also naturally- and has warmed a little since then. But the trend for the last 70 years is still <b>towards cooling</B>. According to the Milantkovitch cycles, the Holocene (present warm period) has lasted for 10,500 years already. So we are now at the end of the warm period and should be heading towards the next glaciation.
quote: <font color=blue>* Do you believe that severe global warming can occur in short periods of time (much less than 100 years)? </font>
YES, it has happened before, when the Medieval Climatic Optimum began back in 850 AD. You should have specified what do you mean by "severe". 1°C, 2°C, 4°C, 10°C or more?
quote: <font color=blue>* If so, do you believe that the activities of man is and will be making this period of global warming much more severe? </font>
NO. Absolutely NOT. Man´s activities only add about 3% of the <b>alleged</b> greenhouse gas CO2. Nature's contribution accounts for about 97%. Besides that, CO2 contributes with only 3,5% of the "heat retention hability" of the atmosphere, while water vapor accounts for more than 95% of such hability.
quote: <font color=blue>* Do you believe that "runaway" global warming is a possibility (that is warming that is so severe and so fast that most life is wiped out before the earth can compensate)? </font>
NO. During the Cretaceous period (about 60 - 90 million years ago), CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were in the range of 6,000 to 2,600 ppm --that is, they decreased from 6,000 ppm 90 million YBP (years before present) to 2,600 ppp 60 Million YBP. During that period, paleoclimatic proxy studies revealed that global temperatures then were <b>only 1,5°C higher than today</b>. Of course, there was not "runaway" warming, either global or local, not even when CO2 concentrations were weel above those 6,000 parts per million ( about 2,000 times more than present levels).
quote: <font color=blue>* Do you believe that severe global warming could have a very detrimental effect on a significant portion of life on the earth (including man)? </font>
<b>DEPENDS</b> on what you mean by <b>"severe"</b>. 2°C higher than now, will take us to the same global temperatures occurring during the aforementioned Medieval Climatic Optimum --that is, the <b>BEST and OPTIMUM</B> temperatures for sustaining life on Earth, either human, vegetal, animal or acquatic. Although Greenland had most of its surface <B>free of ice</B>, the Poles didn't melt, the sea levels didn't rise. The Vikigns were colonizing Greenland (I wonder why the Vikings gave that name to the presently ice covered island), and northern Canada. Although climatologists have classified 2°C more than today as the <b>OPTIMUM</b> temperature, politicians have classified it as <B>APOCALYPTIC</B>. Whom do you trust in scientific matters? Scientists or politicians? (I know politicians cannot be trusted even in politics, so there it goes...)
quote: <font color=blue>* Do you believe that global warming that results in signifcant death of the human population on earth would be a "good thing" or a "bad thing"?</font>
Please quantify <b>"significant".</B> Significant death of human population is already happening. Just take a look at Third World countries where malaria alone kills 4.000. 000 people every year. Add to this figure famines, diseases caused by undernourishment, pests, insect borne fevers and diseases, lack of sound drinking water, cholera, typhus, civil and military wars, slavery, drugs, guerrilla warfare, terrorism (all of these increased now by "globalization") and you'll have a staggering (significant) figure. But "warming" must be in the range of <b>tens of Centigrade degrees</b> for coming close to these figures regarding human population deaths.
quote: <font color=blue>* Do you believe that man should do something to curb or curtail its activities in order to control global warming? </font>
<B>NO. Why should he do it?</B> Curtailing activities would only increase poverty, economic recession, increase unemployement (perhaps -or surely- yours) and send back mankind to the Dark Ages. Curbing CO2 emissions --as Kyoto Treaty wants-- won't affect the warming or cooling of the atmosphere. Some scientists even say it would only delay the "warming" for just 6 years: from 2050 tp 2056. And this delay is not woth the enormous burden imposed to mankind by the huge increase in costs of ANYTHING on this planet.
Others say it will only affect that 3% of CO2 contributed by human activities so it won't affect a cinch the warming, as they say there is really a <b>cooling going on</b>, so it would only make things worse. (And they may be right!).. Keep it going. We are doing better every day. We can improve our way of life, if we do positive things, (as we have been doing since we left the caves) but not by negative thinking and insane bans and regulations.
What will cause the shift towards cooling? natural climatic cycles, where many factors contribute (sun's energy output, tilt of the Earth's axis, presession of the equinoxes, etc).
Where will the heat go? part will go to the oceans, and the rest to outer space (as it is happening right now).
You forgot to include among the people who profit from the global warming scare the horde of scientists who thrive on government money and grants that want them to "prove" that Earth will warm to catastrophic levels. Also many corporative lobbies that are interested in geopolitics, world governance, and other profitable calamities.
quote](for instance, if the mechanism is tropical forest recycling of CO2 to O2, then how much forest would be necessary and would we have enough?). ... What I didn't pay enough attention to was the timescale you were using. Your prediction is for a high around 2200 whereas many others seem to put the high (or, at least, intolerable levels) in the next 50-100 years.[/quote]
Actually, <b>adult</b> forests and jungles do not contribute with oxygen because their oxygen balance is <b>negative</B>, that is, adult forests produce more CO2 than they take from the air. (Studies by Bert Bolin, back in the 70s. Bolin is now the head of the IPCC).
As I posted above, the <b>intolerable</b> levels mentioned by the "Warmers", are what climatologists in the 70s termed as <b>OPTIMUM</b> temperatures.
as they say in financial investment, "past history is no guarantee of future returns".
This is a different situation. Earth can be considered as an Automata. It is a self sustaining mechanism with controls in place to keep it in balance. Outside disturbances are minimal but does happen and can be catastrophic to our kind of life. So, the predictions could hold barring a major asteroid, alien invasion, nuclear explosion, blackhole creation etc... :D
Your prediction is for a high around 2200 whereas many others seem to put the high (or, at least, intolerable levels) in the next 50-100 years. You're suggesting a (reasonably) steady increase whereas others are beginning to think it will be more exponential (for instance, see http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_relea...m-ewt041102.php).
Exponential rise or fall can only happen if we explode all the nuclear bombs at once. Otherwise, humans do not produce enough energy to even match a seasons worth of energy equivalent of hurricane, tornados, lightening etc. We both are correct in the sense that whoever is looking at exponential is looking at the short cycle (20 - 50 years) where there is a smaller wave. There are different harmonics at play here and ususally higher harmonics has shorter amplitude and therefore can be exponential. The base wave function is what I have. I posted the other graph that shows the subharmonics somewhere in another topic I think.
Originally posted by kmguru
This is a different situation. Earth can be considered as an Automata. It is a self sustaining mechanism with controls in place to keep it in balance.
Not true. The Earth is a (relatively) closed system and, thus, will tend to keep itself in balance OVER THE LONG HAUL, but, as your graph shows, it will fluctuate within shorter timescales due to many factors (like Sun/Moon tidal effects, atmospheric gases, Earth tilt, and so on). There may even be several factors going on at one time causing seasonal, yearly, decade, century, and millenial changes that all show up at (nearly) the same time. The question is whether MAN has graduated to being one of those factors.
Exponential rise or fall can only happen if we explode all the nuclear bombs at once.
Again, not true. A large nuclear explosion would be akin to a volcanic eruption in that it could put a lot of stuff into the atmosphere that would adversely impact heat regulation in a short period of time (ie. less than a year). That's not an exponential rise, but rather a catastrophic rise. An exponential rise would be caused by pumping stuff into the atmosphere more slowly, but not removing it as fast as it's being put in. That is the question of CO2 production. If CO2 in the atmosphere is rising, then we're beginning an exponential growth in heat. The Earth may have a mechanism for removing that CO2 that will eventually kick in, but will it kick in in time for US?
:eek:
gotanygum
06-13-02, 09:31 PM
Has anyone read 'satanic gases?' I saw the author talk about his book on television last week, I believe it was. What does the word CATO [in CATO institute] stand for -- just a side note there.
in vivo
06-13-02, 10:28 PM
The beginning post in this thread contained a myopic statement which referred jestingly to a 1.2 degree increase in global temperature.
If only it were that simplistic. To jest about about a 1.2 degree increase in temperature shows a real lack of perspective. Posts by Northwind and Avatar I think bring up a few very good points. I believe it is a huge miscalculation to act as though there isn't a complex and important interrelationship b/w human action, greenhouse gases, the ozone layer, global warming, weather patterns/changes, the jet stream, etc. etc. etc. Each has effects on each and all.
From a post: "Global warming is a natural process"
Hell yeah---until you throw some laboratory produced chemicals into the mix---in extremely large quantities---chemicals which catalyze reactions that destroy ozone; (just a mention)
From a post: "The earth was witness to an atmosphere with 10 times as much CO2 and here we are complaining about it"
Far be it for me to complain, but I don't look fondly upon a past where the atmosphere had ten times as much CO2 in it and the only living things were bacteria/viruses nor a future earth where the same is true.
Originally posted by BatM
Not true. The Earth is a (relatively) closed system and, thus, will tend to keep itself in balance OVER THE LONG HAUL, but, as your graph shows, it will fluctuate within shorter timescales due to many factors (like Sun/Moon tidal effects, atmospheric gases, Earth tilt, and so on). There may even be several factors going on at one time causing seasonal, yearly, decade, century, and millenial changes that all show up at (nearly) the same time. The question is whether MAN has graduated to being one of those factors.
But it is true. It is like a complex organism like a human or animal for example. In humans, your blood pressure goes up and down through out the day. Same for your glucose level and many thousands of chemicals, proteins, hormones all try to keep you in balance. When the external factors overwhelm then you have a stroke or death. Saying that all the plants and animals on Earth have autonomous regulated systems but Earth does not is short sighted....
Again, not true. A large nuclear explosion would be akin to a volcanic eruption in that it could put a lot of stuff into the atmosphere that would adversely impact heat regulation in a short period of time (ie. less than a year). That's not an exponential rise, but rather a catastrophic rise. An exponential rise would be caused by pumping stuff into the atmosphere more slowly, but not removing it as fast as it's being put in. That is the question of CO2 production. If CO2 in the atmosphere is rising, then we're beginning an exponential growth in heat. The Earth may have a mechanism for removing that CO2 that will eventually kick in, but will it kick in in time for US?
Again True. I said all the nuclear bombs. And the difference between exponential and catastrophic is semantics because the "x" here is not given. A pulse rise still would have time component and can be said exponential according to my high school math - unless someone changed to the new math....:D
Besides no one knows how the nuclear generator that produces the magnetic field will act or what the forces will do to the orbital path of the earth and moon and so on....
Originally posted by kmguru
But it is true. It is like a complex organism like a human or animal for example. In humans, your blood pressure goes up and down through out the day. Same for your glucose level and many thousands of chemicals, proteins, hormones all try to keep you in balance. When the external factors overwhelm then you have a stroke or death. Saying that all the plants and animals on Earth have autonomous regulated systems but Earth does not is short sighted....
But I'm not saying that. I'm simply saying that the regulatory system of the Earth is on a much longer timescale than the human, animal, or plant life that inhabits it. Sure there are things that happen on a daily, monthly, or yearly basis (weather patterns), but there are also things that happen on geologic timescales (like ice ages) to regulate the balance of the Earth. I don't think anyone's saying that the Earth won't eventually return to balance (I have heard of a "runaway warming" scenario, but I hardly think it likely). The question is how severe the perturbation will be and whether we (the human race) will still be here when it's over. Finally, if the fluctuation is going to be severe, did we cause it and can we fix it?
Again True. I said all the nuclear bombs. And the difference between exponential and catastrophic is semantics because the "x" here is not given. A pulse rise still would have time component and can be said exponential according to my high school math - unless someone changed to the new math....:D
Besides no one knows how the nuclear generator that produces the magnetic field will act or what the forces will do to the orbital path of the earth and moon and so on....
You're ignoring the point that a large nuclear explosion is not the only way that man might cause exponentially accelerating global warming. Putting something into the atmosphere faster than it is taken out (as in the various greenhouse gases) would also qualify if that something has a cumulative effect on global warming (or cooling). I don't have a link at the moment, but I've seen studies before that show greenhouse gases in the atmosphere rising quite rapidly over the past few decades. This is what led to my initial question of what mechanism you were predicting would begin the cool down (but I missed the timescale you were talking about).
p.s. you'll note that nowhere above am I stating my position on global warming. I'm seeking "expert" opinion here, but I'm expecting it to be backed up with (understandable ;) ) data to justify it.
Note, I was trying to be somewhat vague in my questions purposely in order to not put words in people's mouths. However, it's hard to balance asking an open question and yet still get it to address the areas you're interested in... :(
Originally posted by Edufer
quote: <font color=blue>"* Do you believe that the earth has periods of global warming and global cooling?"</font>
YES. (You should have said :"natural periods or cycles")
That would've been leading. I hoped that people (like you) would specify their belief in this.
quote: <font color=blue>* If so, do you believe that the earth is currently in a period of global warming? </font>
YES, it has been warming -naturally- since the end of the Little Ice Age about 1860. It cooled again from 1940 to 1962 -also naturally- and has warmed a little since then. But the trend for the last 70 years is still towards cooling. According to the Milantkovitch cycles, the Holocene (present warm period) has lasted for 10,500 years already. So we are now at the end of the warm period and should be heading towards the next glaciation.
Hmmm. Interesting and some of the information I was looking for.
quote: <font color=blue>* Do you believe that severe global warming can occur in short periods of time (much less than 100 years)? </font>
YES, it has happened before, when the Medieval Climatic Optimum began back in 850 AD. You should have specified what do you mean by "severe". 1°C, 2°C, 4°C, 10°C or more?
Again, something I wanted to leave open because I'm not sure what climatologists would classify as severe.
quote: <font color=blue>* If so, do you believe that the activities of man is and will be making this period of global warming much more severe? </font>
NO. Absolutely NOT. Man's activities only add about 3% of the alleged greenhouse gas CO2. Nature's contribution accounts for about 97%. Besides that, CO2 contributes with only 3,5% of the "heat retention hability" of the atmosphere, while water vapor accounts for more than 95% of such hability.
Are there other greenhouse gases? Are the greenhouse gases rising year over year? If so, how long have they been rising? If not, how far back do the measurements go?
quote: <font color=blue>* Do you believe that "runaway" global warming is a possibility (that is warming that is so severe and so fast that most life is wiped out before the earth can compensate)? </font>
NO. During the Cretaceous period (about 60 - 90 million years ago), CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were in the range of 6,000 to 2,600 ppm --that is, they decreased from 6,000 ppm 90 million YBP (years before present) to 2,600 ppp 60 Million YBP. During that period, paleoclimatic proxy studies revealed that global temperatures then were <b>only 1,5°C higher than today</b>. Of course, there was not "runaway" warming, either global or local, not even when CO2 concentrations were weel above those 6,000 parts per million ( about 2,000 times more than present levels).
quote: <font color=blue>* Do you believe that severe global warming could have a very detrimental effect on a significant portion of life on the earth (including man)? </font>
DEPENDS on what you mean by "severe". 2°C higher than now, will take us to the same global temperatures occurring during the aforementioned Medieval Climatic Optimum --that is, the BEST and OPTIMUM temperatures for sustaining life on Earth, either human, vegetal, animal or acquatic. Although Greenland had most of its surface free of ice, the Poles didn't melt, the sea levels didn't rise. The Vikigns were colonizing Greenland (I wonder why the Vikings gave that name to the presently ice covered island), and northern Canada. Although climatologists have classified 2°C more than today as the OPTIMUM temperature, politicians have classified it as APOCALYPTIC. Whom do you trust in scientific matters? Scientists or politicians? (I know politicians cannot be trusted even in politics, so there it goes...)
"Severe" was left open purposely and what you're saying is that there is some leeway in the warming of the Earth before it becomes a severe problem. I was wondering why kmguru's graphs seemed centered at -2.
Curtailing activities would only increase poverty, economic recession, increase unemployement (perhaps -or surely- yours) and send back mankind to the Dark Ages. Curbing CO2 emissions --as Kyoto Treaty wants-- won't affect the warming or cooling of the atmosphere. Some scientists even say it would only delay the "warming" for just 6 years: from 2050 tp 2056. And this delay is not woth the enormous burden imposed to mankind by the huge increase in costs of ANYTHING on this planet.
Others say it will only affect that 3% of CO2 contributed by human activities so it won't affect a cinch the warming, as they say there is really a cooling going on, so it would only make things worse. (And they may be right!).. Keep it going. We are doing better every day. We can improve our way of life, if we do positive things, (as we have been doing since we left the caves) but not by negative thinking and insane bans and regulations.
Well, climate issues aside, I sometimes wonder if the trends from current activities will actually lead to greater employment, properity, and so on. Sure we had some heady times in the late 90s, but the trend is toward greater automation and efficiency. I sometimes wonder where that will wind up and if it can go too far.
What will cause the shift towards cooling? natural climatic cycles, where many factors contribute (sun's energy output, tilt of the Earth's axis, presession of the equinoxes, etc).
Where will the heat go? part will go to the oceans, and the rest to outer space (as it is happening right now).
Those are very long timescale items for cooling. Do they come into play in the next ~200 years?
You forgot to include among the people who profit from the global warming scare the horde of scientists who thrive on government money and grants that want them to "prove" that Earth will warm to catastrophic levels. Also many corporative lobbies that are interested in geopolitics, world governance, and other profitable calamities.
This is a statement that I can't put much credence in. Not because I don't believe it, but more because there is easily an equal statement that can (and often is) made from the other side. That is, what about all the scientists funded by corporations (or governments) that don't want to do anything about "global warming" because it would be too expensive to implement the restrictions.
Originally posted by Edufer
Actually, adult forests and jungles do not contribute with oxygen because their oxygen balance is <b>negative</B>, that is, adult forests produce more CO2 than they take from the air. (Studies by Bert Bolin, back in the 70s. Bolin is now the head of the IPCC).
What is the IPCC?
I was wondering why kmguru's graphs seemed centered at -2.
It is -0.2. Anyway that happened because of the mean temperature calculation was done based on 1961 -90. It was an extract from a published data.
Edufer has better data to back up his claim and if there is a conflict from my data, I have to defer to him. The bottom line is if my data for the last 1000 years is correct, then the projection I calculated is plausible. The otherpart one has to remember is, whatever we introduce to our surroundings is very small (3%)compared to what Earth does. The only area that can have runaway reaction is if we start building a big balckhole - only if we can.
We are not in disagreement, basically we are bringing some facts to light and watching the "sky is falling" dance from some groups.
Originally posted by BatM
What is the IPCC? The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climatic Change. The biggest Scaremonger of them all..
Originally posted by Edufer
The biggest Scaremonger of them all..
Well, before we get into scaremongering, there is still some data that I'm looking for.
Which gases are known as the "greenhouse gases"?
What percentage of Earth's atmosphere do they currently represent?
Has the percentage trended up or down or stayed steady lately?
Do we know how many years back that trend goes? (>100, I hope?)
Of that percentage, how much is attributable to man?
Has that percentage trended up or down lately?
Of those percentages, what has their rate of change been?
Do we have figures on how fast the Earth converts "greenhouse gases" into something less problematic? (say, CO2 -> O2)
What are the major mechanisms that the Earth uses for this conversion?
If "greenhouse gases" are growing, are they growing faster than Earth's ability to convert them?
Are there any "sudden" changes climatologists are hoping for to affect the conversion? (volcanoes, sea salt, iceberg melt, ocean methane, etc.)
I just want to make sure all the data (with a reasonable interpretation) is out on the table.
I'll probably think of more questions later. :)
<font color=blue>Which gases are known as the "greenhouse gases"?</font>
All gases in the atmosphere have "heat retention capability", what makes them "greenhouse gases". What we must take into account is: 1) degree of heat retention, 2) concentration in the atmosphere. From there we could make a table of "importance" of the gases. (Although the gases with the highest heat retention are CFCs, they are present in the stratosphere and troposphere at concentrations ranging from 100 ppb (parts per bilion) to 0,1 ppt (parts per trillion), making them worthless as greenhouse gases.
In such <b>Greenhouse Gases Table</b> we would see the most important one is <b>"water vapor"</B> (better known as "relative humidity), because of its huge concentration in the atmosphere. Then comes, lagging far behind, CO2, then Methane, NOx (nitrous oxides), Argon, and other gases whose importance is near zero (as CFCs and ozone, whose concentration is 0,000003 percent, or three millionths percent).
Water vapor accounts for about 95% of the "heat retention" capability of the atmosphere. Humidity comes from the evaporation of water in the oceans (75% of Eart's surface), rivers, lakes, evapoperspiration from forests, jungles, grass lawns, prairies, crops, etc... anything with leaves. CO2 is provided in its 97% by nature (volcanoes, forests and savanas fires, rotting of wood and organic matter in forests and jungles, etc). Man made CO2 amounts to about 3,5%. Methane is mostly provided by nature, (rice paddies, forests, zillion of ants, termites and other insects, and some comes from cattle belching and other bodily functions).
<font color=blue>What percentage of Earth's atmosphere do they currently represent? </font>
Water vapor = 95% - CO2 = 3,5% - Methane = 1%. Other gases = 0,5%
<font color=blue>Has the percentage trended up or down or stayed steady lately?</font>
CO2 has increased from 312 ppm in the 19th century to 365 ppm today. Not much, considering that when CO2 went down from 6,000 ppm to 2,600 ppm during the Cretaceus period (90-60 millions years ago), the temperature remained quite the same (1° C higher than now). But CO2 concentrations, as determined by proxy studies, did not go up when the temperature increased during the Climatic Optimum between 800-1250 AD, when temperatures reached 2°C higher than now. Nor did the concentrations go down when the Little Ice Age came about 1300 AD. This show there is no correllation between <b>CO2 increase</b> and <b>then</b>, temperature increase, (or viceversa). Many studies have shown, though, that some correllation exists: the CO2 increase <b>comes after</B> temperature increase, lagging about 100-300 years. But there is strong and direct positive correllation between sun's activity (sunspots) and climatic change. See:
<A href="http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html"><B>Global Warming: Does it Exist? </B></A>
<font color=blue>Do we know how many years back that trend goes? (>100, I hope?) </font>
See above.
<font color=blue>Of that percentage, how much is attributable to man? </font>
Increase of CO2 can be attributed to mankind in about 3%.
<font color=blue>Has that percentage trended up or down lately? </font>
The trend is upwards since beginning of the 20th century.
<font color=blue>Of those percentages, what has their rate of change been? </font>
CO2: From 312 ppm to 360 ppm in about 150 years.
<font color=blue>Do we have figures on how fast the Earth converts "greenhouse gases" into something less problematic? (say, CO2 -> O2) </font>
For example, measurements from Mount Mauna Loa (Hawaii), showed an accumulation of CO2 aproximately equivalent to a liberation of 3 Gt (giga tons , or million tons) of carbon every year, However, in 1978 and 1979, fossil fuels burned amounted to 5,1 and 5,4 Gt of carbon. More than 2 Gt of carbon (some years more than 2,5 Gt) is absorbed by the oceans and other natural processes perhaps transforming it into limestone (calcium carbonate). Oceanologists and chemists said the oceans cannot absorb such amount, until George Woodwell (Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, Mass.) and Bert Bolin, in Stockholm, proved that the old notion claiming that most CO2 was absorbed by biomass, stimulating growth of forests and jungles in viewe of the more availability of CO2 for photosynthesis was wrong. They proved (independently) that forests and biomass actually can produce more CO2 than they remove from the atmosphere.
Measurements of ice cores from polar samples, showed that during the most recent glaciation (from 11,000 years ago to 100,000 years ago), CO2 concentrations could have been half of today's, probably because cold oceans absorb more CO2, or perhaps there was less green areas producing CO2 (most of the Northern Hemisphere was covered with a 3,000 meters high ice layer).
<font color=blue>What are the major mechanisms that the Earth uses for this conversion? </font>
As stated above, oceans absorb CO2, depositing it in the ocean floor. There is small conversion being performed when cement and lime mortars absorb CO2 to be tranformed into calcium carbonate. But this process just reverses the original release of CO2 occurred when cement and lime was manufactured: calcium carbonate transformed into calcium oxide (quick lime), or limestone burned to make cement "clincker".
<font color=blue>If "greenhouse gases" are growing, are they growing faster than Earth's ability to convert them? </font>
CO2 is growing at a rate of 2 ppm per year. Scientists are divided into two groups, those who say CO2 increase is "man-made" (fossil fuels) and hence the warming produced by CO2, and those claiming that CO2 increase is mostly produced by the increased temperatures that produce increased growth of vegetation, and a silght increase in volcanic activity during the 20th century.
--- BTW, hydrocarbons, or oil, <b>are NOT FOSSILS</b>. Fossils are only carbon layers coming from ancient jungles and forests, quite superficial layers, of course. According to the theory of Dr. Thomas Gold, Stanford Univ. Oil is being produced constantly by helium and methane, deep in the Earth's crust (8,000 meters deep and more). This seems plausible, as if oil was produced by ancient forests and jungles, where did those 8,000 -16,000 meters of thick covering came from? That's a lot of sediment necessary for covering the whole Earth. Carbon deposits can be explained this way, but not oil. Just see: <A HREF=http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/FossilFuels.html"><B> "Fossil Fuels are not Fossil"</B></A>.
<font color=blue>Are there any "sudden" changes climatologists are hoping for to affect the conversion? (volcanoes, sea salt, iceberg melt, ocean methane, etc.) </font>
There are not sudden changes in paleoclimatic history. Leave out asteroid impacts. Earth processes are measured in a geological scale, that means, hundred of thousands, or millions of years.
Before you start thinking in more questions, it would be useful if you paid a visit to this link:, where you can get the scientific facts and necessary data: <A HREF="http://www.john-daly.com/"><B>"Still Waiting for the Greenhouse"</B></A>. There you can find links to other sources and institutions involved in the Global Warming issue. You could also go to: <A HREF="http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoQuestionsAnswers.html"><b>Kyoto Questions and Answers"</B></A>
Other interesting site that covers most environmental issues (Myths and Frauds) is located at: <A HREF="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/ENGLISH.html"><B>"Ecology: Myths and Frauds"</B></A> where you can satisfy your thirst for knowledge. Have a nice trip in the web!
This is a very interesting discussion, as a layman I am able to follow most of what you people are saying but I'll admit that some of it over my head.
But you guys are blowing it all out of proportion. If there is indeed a threat of global warming that will mean death and destruction to the life on this planet, then there is a very simple why to stop it, if it is indeed stopable.
I see it this way.
As I understand it, the causes of global warming go back to the 19th century and include the greater use of fossil fuels, population growth, chemicals and in general Industrialization.
Industrialization had it's root in the renissance (sp?) and the period of enlightenment. During this time alchemy became medicine and science moved from herresy to main stream accademics. Universities were founded and life began to improve.
My argument is simply this:
Science = Chemicals, polution, waste products, greater need for electricity, greater food production.
Medicine = Longer life, larger population, less disease.
Politics = More stable foreign relations, fewer wars, less death from war.
Science+Medicine+Politics=Global Warming
This teachs us that the real cause of global warming is Scientists, Doctors and politians.
Solution:
1. Burn all colleges and universities to the ground.
2. Destroy all scientific knowledge that has been gained in the last 500 years.
3. Destroy all modern techology.
4. Give all Scientists, Doctors and politians something useful to do for the rest of their lives such as, give them each a shovel and orders to fill in the Grand Canyon.
There! problem solved... No more polution to cause global warming because the technology to produce it has been destroyed and no one left with the knowledge to recreate the technology.
Half of the world's population will die of starvation and half of the survivors will die in the insueing wars for what is left. Diseases will flourish and take the lives of 10's of millions every year. lifespans will return to a more managable 40 - 60 years and all will be good again.
Science got us into this problem (if indeed there is a problem) but it took a layman to get us out.
765
Your elegant solution is exactly what is proposed by environmentalists and their friends....
So, you are one of them....like it or not....:D
Go join the Seirra Club and hand over all your fortunes to them, you will not be needing those technology created fortunes. They are evil.....:D
Mother nature will thank you and after everybody dies, may be mother nature will create a specis that is minus these idiots...so that her children can soar the stars and make her proud....That has always been any mothers wish.....from animals to humans.....
Originally posted by kmguru
Your elegant solution is exactly what is proposed by environmentalists and their friends....
Now, now. That's not true. True environmentalists claim that there are better ways of working WITH nature for the betterment of ALL life on Earth rather than selfishly promoting personal gain without understanding the far reaching effects that can (and does) have on the rest of the life on Earth.
Originally posted by BatM
Now, now. That's not true. True environmentalists claim that ...
The operative word here is: True
How many true you have met? I am one...but I dont go around blowing store fronts or lying in front a nuclear material transport. I have designed all sorts of contraptions to reduce pollution in Power plants, Refineries, Chemical plants etc. I am one of those people who have also designed control systems for breeder reactors and safety systems for nuclear power plants to keep it safe so that you can sleep easily.
The solution is through Quality Research, Science & Technology to find alternate means of doing stuff. By complaining that certain thing is not done itself will not solve anything. Like by complaining about world hunger and impeding biotechnology at the same time does not produce any positive result.
I am sure you know that.
Originally posted by kmguru
The operative word here is: True
How many true you have met
I dislike using a "broad brush" in talking about any group of people.
In the case of the Sierra Club (I'm a member), I think most are trying to do the "right" thing for the planet and have had some good successes in many areas. In many ways, I think without organizations like their's, you wouldn't have had the job that you do. The environmentalist pressure on corporations to clean up their act provide you with a living to help corporations do just that.
Some issues, though, require radical steps to get things done in time to be meaningful. For instance, environmentalist pressure to stop overlogging, overfishing, or overwhaling was necessary to prevent corporations from destroying these (and related!) resources. Without Greenpeace's activities on whaling, would we have a viable population of whales today?
With respect to nuclear facilities, we've had the well known Three Mile Island and Chernobyl disasters as well as lesser known ones (such as Tokimura and Chelyabinsk). From these, most people realize that the cost of one single disaster is more than anyone would want (especially in their back yard). Therefore, most (sane) people haven't been convinced that the benefits of nuclear (or chemical -- remember Bopal) truly outweigh the potential costs and, so, are hesitant to support it's use in a big way.
Personally, I'd like to see more of an effort to bring all the disparate environmentalists together so that they may speak with a single, more informed, voice. Perhaps more scientists should join these organizations to point out what is correct and what is wrong with their positions.
Originally posted by BatM
Personally, I'd like to see more of an effort to bring all the disparate environmentalists together so that they may speak with a single, more informed, voice. Perhaps more scientists should join these organizations to point out what is correct and what is wrong with their positions.
I agree. However, there is a major miconception here regarding the words. It is the scientists who screw up. 60 years ago, scientists ruled the day. Today that word is used to describe professors and research lab rats (I mean humans) tinkering with a specific area without the understanding of the global effects.
Take the example of our forest fires. Thanks to the environmentalists, most forests were left alone rather than managing them. As a result, what we/they tried to preserve went up the smoke.
When I was in Ohio, I met a few groups who demonstrated in front of the perry nuclear power plant. Having designed nuclear control system, I offered my side of the story. They did not even hear a word I said. They already made up their mind that it should be closed down and everybody should live like the Amish.
You as a member of Sierra Club - see if anyone will listen to you bringing people from opposing point of view into the club. It wont happen. And even if they bring in a few token people, they will ignore the facts. It is in the nature of extreme groups to shun moderation. That is the basic property.
The very existence of a fundamentalist is threatened by reason. Look at those terrorists. The worse part is they are partially right.
Originally posted by kmguru
When I was in Ohio, I met a few groups who demonstrated in front of the perry nuclear power plant. Having designed nuclear control system, I offered my side of the story. They did not even hear a word I said. They already made up their mind that it should be closed down and everybody should live like the Amish.
There are always extremists (on both sides), but I have no idea how well you presented yourself. At that point, they may have felt they'd already done their "due diligence" and your arguments were simply rehashing territory they'd already covered.
You as a member of Sierra Club - see if anyone will listen to you bringing people from opposing point of view into the club. It wont happen. And even if they bring in a few token people, they will ignore the facts. It is in the nature of extreme groups to shun moderation. That is the basic property.
I don't know. The Sierra Club maintains hundreds of email lists for many specific issues (most look like they're oriented toward regional issues). Naturally, you'd have to follow some level of proper ettiquette in discussing the issues, but I don't see any problem in discussing all parts of the issue. My feeling is that the views of the Sierra Club percolate up from its members over time rather than being imposed from the top. Therefore, I don't think you could jump in at the top and quickly change their view -- there are too many other viewpoints in play to make it that easy. Of course, they're no different in being difficult about having their viewpoint changed than any other organization (scientific or otherwise).
The very existence of a fundamentalist is threatened by reason.
You, of course, realize that this attitude can be applied to both sides.
Originally posted by BatM
You, of course, realize that this attitude can be applied to both sides.
There is no other side. Whether it is nuclear power or biotechnology, we technologists do the best we can to solve a specific problem or demand. We did not set out to push an agenda that the country should have nuclear power plants or bio-enhanced rice to feed the hungry. Like any technology, there are limitations and compromises but the technology is fluid in the sense that people see both good and bad and do their best to reduce the adverse effects. If you read the PDR (Physician's Desk Reference) you will find most effective drugs also have side effects and sometime people die taking them. Yet the same medications save millions of lives every week.
It is that greater good that needs to be weighed against any adverse effects. That does not mean we should kill 50 people to save the other 50, but our knowledge is a limiting factor where problems arise rather than malice on our part.
I am sorry to say that there is no other side as virulent as the fundamentalist. Think about it - the otherside of terrorism?
You gave us a good moment of humor 765. Really hilarous. So I'll keep the hilarious mood and give my views in the same deliriant way of reasoning.
As I understand it, the causes of global warming go back to the 19th century and include the greater use of fossil fuels, population growth, chemicals and in general Industrialization.
You have hearing and reading the fairy tales told by green elves. Warming has nothing to do with use of fuels, population growth or human activities. Warming and cooling has always had natural causes --and will remain in that state, at least until science and technology in the future give a way to actually control the clima.
Industrialization had it's root in the renaissance (sp?) and the period of enlightenment. During this time alchemy became medicine and science moved from herresy to main stream accademics. Universities were founded and life began to improve.
Hmm... that sounds good to me.
Science = Chemicals, polution, waste products, greater need for electricity, greater food production.
It still sounds good to me (and billions of people who enjoy what science & tech has provided them.
Medicine = Longer life, larger population, less disease.
It gets better every minute. Keep doing it!
Politics = More stable foreign relations, fewer wars, less death from war.
Ooops! I knew there was something wrong. You goofed here.
Fewer wars? Since 1933 the world has been in a state of small, localized wars. Just take a look at Africa and Southeast Asia. Then look at insurgent movements in Latin America. Filipines, Africa again, the Middle East, the Balcan area, all countries ending in "istan", etc., etc.
Less death from war? The amount of people killed in wars during the 20th Century alone surpases the number of people killed in wars since God created the Universe. British RAF bombers (with a "little help from my friends" the USAF) burned to ashes 140,000 people in Dresden, Germany in just <b>ONE SINGLE</b> night. In Hiroshima and Nagasaki you did all by yourselves. Nice job! One plane, one bomb. What about the East Front in 1942-44? Stalingrad? Kiev? Heard about Hamburg or Frankfurt?
Perhaps you meant: <B>"less American soldiers dead, less body-bags returning home"</B>. Then you are right. <B>Desert storm</B>. Nice. Few Allied soldiers dead. Doesn't matter if thousands of innocent people died in Bagdad. There are too many of them, anyway. They had been reproducing riotously. And those dark skins are hideous...
Stable foreign relations? In view of "globalization" I wonder if there are foreign relations at all. Just a <B>Big World Cop</B> stepping in and out when he pleases. Or sending his buddies in the <b>Permanent Five</b> board for doing the dirty job for him...
Science+Medicine+Politics=Global Warming
As a mathematician you really suck. Nowhere in the terms of your formula there is something related to warming.
This teachs us that the real cause of global warming is Scientists, Doctors and politicians.
You are leaving out Tarot card readers, Hot-Dog franchises, McDonald, the Halley comet, Men In Black, UFOs, Mulder, and other more probable causes...
Solution: 1. Burn all colleges and universities to the ground. Better transform them into Mediterranean Clubs. Use the existing premises. Build some swimming pools and tennis courts, golf lawns, etc. Recycle, don't destroy...
2. Destroy all scientific knowledge that has been gained in the last 500 years.
3. Destroy all modern technology.
You really are a destructive type, man. Easy said than done.
4. Give all Scientists, Doctors and politians something useful to do for the rest of their lives such as, give them each a shovel and orders to fill in the Grand Canyon.
Yes, they should fill it with horse dung that was going to be provided by the increase in horse-drawn carriages, according to the prophecies made in the Global 1900 report presented to the US president by environmentalist Elbert James in 1880, (he was Henry Jame's brother...). According to Elbert, in view of the population increase prophesized by Malthus in 1795, the need for horses that would draw carriages and other vehicles, the amount of horse dung resulting from this increase would fill the five times the Great Canyon. It seems nobody told him that Herr Benz had invented amechanical device called "the internal combustion engine" that would in time seclude horses to circus, race tracks and Hollywood movies.
Then Elbert jumped onto another bandwagon: <b>energy conservation!</b> Back in 1880! A precursor... He envisioned a shortage of wax for candles and pushed forward a petition to the federal government for the creation of a Corp of Inspectors that would look into everybody's ears and collect wax! This is no joke. It is written down in history. At the same time he laughed loudly at the invention of a guy named Thomas A. Edison. <b>"Improbable speculations"</b>, said this stooge.
What next? Because the fashion at the time was wearing beaver hats (in a David Crockett style) he launched a campaign with the help of <i>The New York Times</i> (who else?) claiming that the disappearnce of the beavers would result in devastating floods in America --because there would be no beavers to make the dams that controlled them. So many sensible and sincere kids and youngsters gathered at the Metropolitan Opera in New York to boo! Those rich gentlemen that wore the beaver hats. Brigitte Bardot and Greenpeace didn't invent anything... This enlightened Gaia Witness hadn't heard of of a technology named "portland cement" that was about to be used -succesfully- to build really good dams --and leave beavers chomping trunks in peace....
Do you think we should have learned something from this? No way! In 1980 there was a second report of the same catastrophic dimension called <b>"Global 2000"</B>, presented by the Greens to President James Carter. It was an updatede version of the first one. Colaborators in the report were characters as Lester Brown, Paul Ehrlich, and the same Royal Court of Stooges. Listen: not one, <b>not a single one</b> prediction in the report turned out to be true --not for a million miles!
There! problem solved... No more polution to cause global warming because the technology to produce it has been destroyed and no one left with the knowledge to recreate the technology.
No one left to cure your children when they got the measles. Not to mention a cancer.
Half of the world's population will die of starvation and half of the survivors will die in the insueing wars for what is left. Diseases will flourish and take the lives of 10's of millions every year. lifespans will return to a more managable 40 - 60 years and all will be good again.
Revernd Malthus's dream come true! This is the environmentalist's paradise. But you are wrong about lifespans: ancient Romans, even after learning a lot from Hypocrates, had a lifespan of about 30 years.
Science got us into this problem (if indeed there is a problem) but it took a layman to get us out.
On the contrary. Science has never sent us into any problem that could not solve shortly afterwards. I wonder who's the layman who took us out of a problem. What problem? <b>Global Warming?</b> There is no problem at all. <b>Global Cooling?</b> Nobody can take us out of that problem.</B> <B>Ozone layer decrease?</B> There is not such a decrease.
As I see it, the only problems we have are the increased gullibility of people, the incresing number of green organizations making fast bucks from the environmental scares they promote, the increasing number of politicians, and the decreasing level of scientific education in our schools.
The Jerry Lewis Show is over. Stop laughing and go home.
Originally posted by kmguru
There is no other side.
Of course there is. Extreme positions go both ways.
Whether it is nuclear power or biotechnology, we technologists do the best we can to solve a specific problem or demand.
The terms "we technologists" is another "broad brush". The solutions that we come up with, although perhaps highly ingenious, don't always take into account their full effects on issues outside the "specific problem or demand".
We did not set out to push an agenda that the country should have nuclear power plants or bio-enhanced rice to feed the hungry. Like any technology, there are limitations and compromises but the technology is fluid in the sense that people see both good and bad and do their best to reduce the adverse effects.
Agreed. Reducing "adverse effects", though, can be done in two ways -- find better ways of doing it or stop doing it. Environmentalists take the same approach -- assess the environmental impact and either campaign for change or campaign to have it stopped. Just as "we technologists" may say that nuclear power can be handled, others (like the environmentalists) may ask "how many times do we have to fail before we decide it's too costly?" Different viewpoints...
I am sorry to say that there is no other side as virulent as the fundamentalist. Think about it - the otherside of terrorism?
The person(s) who write the history determine whether they will be labelled "terrorist" or "patriot". The British subjects in Boston in 1776 would probably have labelled those who participated in the "Tea Party" as terrorists.
Note, I in no way condone the actions of 9/11. The terrorists may have had (semi-)legitimate grievances against Israel and the U.S., but what they did to make their point was WAY over the edge.
Originally posted by BatM
Of course there is. Extreme positions go both ways.
There is no extreme position at the so called other side because it is silent for most part.
Note, I in no way condone the actions of 9/11. The terrorists may have had (semi-)legitimate grievances against Israel and the U.S., but what they did to make their point was WAY over the edge.
So do the eco-terrorists - way over the edge....
It is the classic statements by developed nations to developing nations: Dont do what we do, but do as we tell you to do.
Great posts keep them coming!
I am enjoying this keep going!
:D :D
Originally posted by kmguru
So do the eco-terrorists - way over the edge....
Sometimes, perhaps, but please don't lump all environmentalists under the label "eco-terrorist". Also, even amongst some of the extreme cases, whether they should be truly labelled "ecological saviours" or "ecological terrorists" is something that history will have to determine.
My view is that, if they believe they have an important enough issue, then they should protest in (almost!) any fashion they choose to make the point. I do not condone protests whose purpose is to get someone(s) killed (as in killing abortion doctors to save unborn kids) and I would rarely (if ever) condone protests that result in large scale destruction of property. However, the very nature of protesting is that you're going to "get in someone's face" to try to make your point. It has to be done appropriately, though, to make the point and not create a backlash against the protest.
Bottom line is, while you show pragmatism, most protesters take extreme positions to make their point, like our government's position on Marijuana vs alcohol/tobacco....
Extreme positions are not limited to private groups...
All I am saying is that we should do risk/benefit analysis and look for what is beneficial for all in the long run. There will always be some grey areas, but we could be pragmatic here too.
It is the classic case of earth is cooling, earth is warming, PCB, Freon issues with so many misdirection....
Originally posted by kmguru
All I am saying is that we should do risk/benefit analysis and look for what is beneficial for all in the long run. There will always be some grey areas, but we could be pragmatic here too.
What makes you think that a risk/benefit analysis hasn't been done or isn't constantly being redone?? :bugeye:
Ultimately, everyone assigns values to "risks" and "benefits" via their own internal compass. That's where democracy comes in and gives everyone a chance to vote on the issue. However, democracy also recognizes that today's vote may be right for today, but not for tomorrow and, so, allows for possible re-votes on an issue. When the results become well understood and generally agreed upon, then re-votes become less frequent and harder to come by (as in voting to change the Constitution), but are still possible.
The idea of "beneficial to all" is a very nebulous notion. You might think that the benefits of a new nuclear power plant outweigh the potential downsides because the downsides can be minimized. However, the people living next to it might have visions of Chernobyl dancing thru their heads. If, through your efforts, the nuclear plant goes in and nothing happens, then you look like a visionary. If something goes wrong...
Originally posted by Edufer
Fewer wars? Since 1933 the world has been in a state of small, localized wars. Just take a look at Africa and Southeast Asia. Then look at insurgent movements in Latin America. Filipines, Africa again, the Middle East, the Balcan area, all countries ending in "istan", etc., etc.
True. As the population expands, more people find reasons to go to war (as opposed to people finding more reasons to go to war).
Less death from war? The amount of people killed in wars during the 20th Century alone surpases the number of people killed in wars since God created the Universe. British RAF bombers (with a "little help from my friends" the USAF) burned to ashes 140,000 people in Dresden, Germany in just <b>ONE SINGLE</b> night. In Hiroshima and Nagasaki you did all by yourselves. Nice job! One plane, one bomb. What about the East Front in 1942-44? Stalingrad? Kiev? Heard about Hamburg or Frankfurt?
Tradegies all, but it would appear that the population of the world after every war is greater than it was going into the war.
Then Elbert jumped onto another bandwagon: <b>energy conservation!</b> Back in 1880! A precursor... He envisioned a shortage of wax for candles and pushed forward a petition to the federal government for the creation of a Corp of Inspectors that would look into everybody's ears and collect wax! This is no joke. It is written down in history. At the same time he laughed loudly at the invention of a guy named Thomas A. Edison. <b>"Improbable speculations"</b>, said this stooge.
How long did it take Edison's light bulb to (largely) replace the wax candle? What sort of "improbable speculation" would you make about the timeframe for the next innovation to replace fossil fuels?
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.