Serious Question about Global Warming

I was gonna post that!

Lets see:

1. The magnetic poles have moved 200 miles in the last 100+ years.

2. Gravity has been found to be weakening (like radioactive material has a half life). They have been measuring the loss for over 200 years.

3. The sun has had those sunspots collected on one side of it for some time now (they move around freely over the surface). The NOAA says those solar winds are one of the largest factors in hurricanes growing so violent so rapidly (they also said the number of hurricanes doesn't really change on average each year, just where they are on the globe).

4. PBS of all stations showed a documentary of this past season as being the coldest on record for an Antarctica winter with snow falling so rapidly it can't be measured and the highest average windspeeds on record too.

These are things out of human control that effect the weather of the earth.

Climate changing? Yes. (Been doing that for centuries.)
Global warming? Maybe. (The earth has done that before too.)
All manmade? NO!!!!!!!

The poles are melting on Mars too. How is Al Gore gonna blame that on mankind?

China starts building a new coal fired generating station every two days? Just heard that and have to find out if it is true.
But their cancer rate in their cities and by their factories being 50 times higher than the rest of the world is true.

Mikey

 

http://epw.senate.gov/public/

well you an get both sides of this issue here, and from our own gov't representatives (definitely pilars of integrity!). To me, one sounds very pragmatic, based on the scientific method and not consensus, one anecdotal, and the other analytical, peer-reviewed, and self-critical. I will let those who are really interested read for themselves and decide.

JW, here is one flaw in your analysis: while cars are cleaner, they still produce lots of CO2, along with all of us who like to breathe (or exhale at least). It's an unfortunate result of combustion. Things like cows, wetlands and other methane producers supposedly have more impact than CO2 producers.

Like most things human in this world, they can be boiled down to two things: 1.) the desire of some to assert control over others,
2.)and/or the desire to enrich one's self.

Thinking big-picture can easily explain how global-warming issues are a great vehicle for advancement of both selfish desires mentioned above.

Anyone who wants to liquidate that future underwater land, I'll trade you acre for acre for some gauranteed dry land outside of Elko, NV. Hurry, you don't want to be caught underwater!

 

I have heard that Miami will be under three feet of water, and Cleveland will be a tropical paradise. Even though I like the idea of a tropical Cleveland (or at very least some incremental improvement), I am not inclined to rush out and buy property there.

There has been much discussion regarding the GW issue. So much so that many people have become alarmists. I will not dispute the science of GW, but what of other scientific studies that have shown the likelyhood for "catastrophic" change. Science has also shown that the floor of the Great Lakes has been steadily rising since the retreat of the glaciers. This could be a real problem with the loss of fresh water, not to mention the end of commerce generated by Great Lakes shipping. The largest natural fresh water lakes on the continent are at risk of becomming mountain ranges. THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING! Why is nobody doing anything about this? We should get the government involved! ou: Oh Yeah, we are the government.

Or maybe we should all sit back and not worry too much about this. I agree we should all be better stewards of our enviornment, but we don't need to set our life styles back to the stone age and live in caves to do it. Mother nature is a reclamation expert, and if it were as bad as many have been saying she would have eliminated us by now. As long as humans are even mildly aware there is a problem, and make small changes to their behavior regarding enviornmental protection, things will be as they should.

For now I will still be a race gas consumer, but I won't pour my used coolant in the storm drain.

 

My last words on this (for now anyway!)

The only concept that I have heard that is apparently reasonable and perhaps objective is this:

There is a lot of organic carbon stored (they use the word "sequestered") in fossil fuels. These fuels are called organic because they were originally airborne (inorganic) carbon dioxide, but they were photosynthesized into plant matter. They are now the boiled down or carburized remains of whatever plant, animal, or bacterial carbon based life forms that died long long ago.

There is a lot of this stuff in the ground. It is not in the air. Back when it was in the air, it was hot, humid, and stuffy on the earth - swampy jungle everywhere.

It is true that there are lots of other sources for carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gasses. Burning firewood, methane from cow poop, beer gas after a case of Stroh's. The thing to remember is that the carbon dioxide from these sources is part of a short term cycle - it's regularly cycling from atmospheric (inorganic) to wood or grass or barley (organic).

As we (the human we) find ways to dig up and burn the fossil stuff, we convert the old, buried, organic carbon into free inorganic carbon. This becomes carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Maybe, if enough of it gets back into the air, we'll have those same hot, humid, stuffy conditions back again.

I don't think that anybody really knows what will happen while this continues. I do not think, though, that the underlying process can be blamed on a vast left (or right) wing conspiracy.

The rest of the discussion is too easily distorted into whichever form of hyperbole needed to make somebody's point, so I'm done talking about it.

 

I'd like to know from the global warming alarmists just when was the climate the perfect temperature?
They must have some benchmark in mind.

.

 

If all that happened was a temperatures rise, Cleveland would still be what it is today - just warmer. Cleveland could never be any sort of paradise... well, if it were submerged first, drained, and we started again, then there'd be a chance.

The floors of the Great Lakes are slowly "rebounding" from the compression they underwent during the last glacial period.

 

Global Warming...

Here's Proof........

 

As previously stated, climate change is inevitable. I read somewhere that we were in a "mini-ice age" at the time of the American Revolution, and that it wasn't over until the 1860s. It could be that we're still warming up from that.

As said by someone else here, the government as to stop the knee-jerk reaction syndrome until all of the facts are in. The funny thing is, all of the hub-bub made about CFCs and ozone was all one heard during that period. The NASA study mentioned at least to my ears was as quiet as mouse. Al Gore disappeared after the 2000 election, but suddenly he's the guru of global warming? And has an Oscar to show for it? GIVE ME A BREAK!

The earth warms and cools. Millions of cars, plants, and factories don't help, but I think the earth is tougher than we know.

 

Now there's an understatement if I ever heard one! p

 

Truzi.

You are missing my point here, A 1995 study by the EPA estimates the total contribution of climate change to sea level will result in an increase of 0.015 meters (0.591") by the year 2050 as the most probable estimate. This study estimates a 1% likelihood that this contribution will result in an increase of 0.042 meters (1.65") by the same year. This study included many factors to climate change, only one of which was greenhouse gas emission. (the one they want you to reduce).

Crustal movement in the Great Lakes Basin, known as isostatic rebound, is severe enough that adjustments in elevation must be performed every 25 to 30 years. The rebound is not uniform throughout the basin, but the latest adjustment (1985) resulted in an elevation increase of 0.460 meters (18.11") at Rimouski, Quebec, an increase of 0.428 meters (16.85") at Thunder Bay on Lake Superior, and an increase of 0.270 meters (10.63") at Calumet Harbor on Lake Michigan, over the prior adjustment of 1955.

This may explain why lake levels in the basin are at historic low levels, and it may not. But the impact of isostatic rebound on public health and the ecomony could be as profound as that of global warming.

My point being, that in the 30 year time period between 1955 and 1985, the actual elevations around the Great Lakes Basin have adjusted by +15.2" (average of three examples), or over 9 times the amount of sea level increase in the "worst case" prediction over a period of 55 years as concluded by the EPA study, yet there is no public outcry that something needs to be done to stop it.

We are expected to leave a smaller "carbon footprint" by reducing our emission of greenhouse gases because some are convinced that it will end global warming. Yet greenhouse gas emission is only a small contribution to overall climate change. I feel that it is unlikely to have much of an impact, and that it is arrogant to think it will. Both climate change and isostatic rebound are slow and imperceptable changes, as are all natural cycles of the earth and it's atmosphere. I just don't think we need to be crying wolf here.

As far as buying property so your decendants can live in a moderate climate, I don't think your grandchildren will need to worry about it. Just my 2 cents.

EPA Report

 

No Global warming in Loganton as far as I can tell....

 

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments_about_global_warming/

Anyone remember back the 70's when they predicted we were entering another ice age due to all the pollution blocking out the suns warming rays? I guess that was just an excuse to explain why we were cursed with cold and wintery weather back then. ou:

 

Good debate.

I am just about done reading "The Weather Makers" by Tim Flannery. Good read, credible fellow (scientist from down under) provides a logical, well supported and documented perpective on the topic. Educate yourself on the topic and be objective.

A couple of year ago my wife and I were guests on a boat, David Suzuki and his wife were also invited. He explained that to get a better grasp of things imagine that the earth is a basket ball, wrap it with a layer of cellophane, That is how thick the atmosphere is. We have over 6 billion people on this planet, at the current rate of growth the population will double in 60 years. We suck out 85 million barrels a day out of mother earth and consume 83.5 million. Something is gotta give sooner or later. Remember "the mind is like a parchute, it works much better when it is open". Read the book.

Cheers.

 

Good debate.

I am just about done reading "The Weather Makers" by Tim Flannery. Good read, credible fellow (scientist from down under) provides a logical, well supported and documented perpective on the topic. Educate yourself on the topic and be objective.

A couple of year ago my wife and I were guests on a boat, David Suzuki and his wife were also invited. He explained that to get a better grasp of things imagine that the earth is a basket ball, wrap it with a layer of cellophane, That is how thick the atmosphere is. We have over 6 billion people on this planet, at the current rate of growth the population will double in 60 years. We suck out 85 million barrels a day out of mother earth and consume 83.5 million. Something is gotta give sooner or later. Remember "the mind is like a parachute, it works much better when it is open". Read the book.

Cheers.

 

I am just about done reading "The Weather Makers" by Tim Flannery.

sorry, i prefer "The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjrn Lomborg. and even he concedes anthropogenic global warming. there are arguments to be made against that.





He explained that to get a better grasp of things imagine that the earth is a basket ball, wrap it with a layer of cellophane, That is how thick the atmosphere is.

and this is the kind of ridiculous, emotive, non-rational 'reasoning' that cripples all of the left, not just the enviro's.

it does not matter at all that, as a function of scale, the atmosphere would be thinner than a layer of cellophane on a basketball. but that's the kind of 'argument' that someone like Suzuki chooses to lead with.





We have over 6 billion people on this planet, at the current rate of growth the population will double in 60 years.

at the current rate of growth?

and this takes into account that across most of the industrialized nations ( China, Russia, Continental Europe, Japan, Canada, the US, Iran for examples ) the reproduction rate is either barely at replacement level ( the US ) or is actually in collapse?

does this take into account that the growth delta is not constant ( in fact it falls as nations industrialize ) or was Suzuki simply repeating Ehrlich's ( "The Population Bomb", his 1970 masterscreed ) lies?





We suck out 85 million barrels a day out of mother earth

if you're going to insist upon such a silly notion as considering the earth your 'mother' then the least you could do is follow the analogy to it's rational conclusion ... that your 'mothers' goal would be for you spread her seed as far as possible and that the best way to do this would be achieve space flight and colonize other solar systems.

which, of necessity, involves extremely high levels of industrialization and 'pollution'.





We suck out 85 million barrels a day out of mother earth and consume 83.5 million. Something is gotta give sooner or later.

have you ever heard of The Holocene Impact Working Group? when you come to grips with just how much 'damage' has been 'done' to your 'mother' by the impersonal vagaries of orbital ballistics, everything that man has done since his advent is childish in comparison.

http://geology.com/news/labels/Meteor-Meteorite.html

 

It is a fact that natural resources are going to run out one day.

The ones that are going to run out the fastest are the ones that cannot be remade quickly (oll and trees).

If a person can convence a law maker or have other connections they will make it illegel to own or use them in order to slow down a process.

Look at R12 for instance.

Next they will out law tolet paper and make badays manitory.

BTW- every one will have there own option on this.

 

The ones that are going to run out the fastest are the ones that cannot be remade quickly (oll and trees).

ou:
ou:
ou:
ou:
ou:

 

I think this thread shows very clearly how effective the press is at spreading pure, unadulterated inaccuracies and outright lies about our the way we "affect" the planet. Anyone who seriously thinks we can damage the earth beyond natural repair is in my opinion pretty doggone arrogant. We're just a pittance in the big picture.

 

Here is another view on man's role in global warming. Interestingly, this program is not going to receive any Emmys, Oscars or Nobel prizes. It won't be of mandatory viewing in schools, and you won't see it on TV, not even a 4AM squeezed between two dental floss infomercials.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...126&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=8

 

The question isn't whether we can permanently damage the earth, it's whether we can affect it in such a way as to bring a great hardship or extinction to ourselves.