Sure, sure. Whenever anyone disagrees with global warming, it's propaganda.
LongeCityAdvocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans
Global Warming - The Little Known Underlying Cause
Started by
adapt007
, Dec 03 2006 07:45 AM
217 replies to this topic
#62
-
- Guest
- 452 posts
- 4 ₮
Posted 18 December 2006 - 11:48 PM
From wikipedia:
"Propaganda is a certain type of message, often deliberately misleading, aimed directly at manipulating the opinions or behavior of people, rather than impartially providing information."
What ExxonMobil and their partners are doing fit well into this definition. Just look at those videos:
We call it life
They are even using astroturfing, the most shameful form of propaganda:
Penguin
"Propaganda is a certain type of message, often deliberately misleading, aimed directly at manipulating the opinions or behavior of people, rather than impartially providing information."
What ExxonMobil and their partners are doing fit well into this definition. Just look at those videos:
We call it life
They are even using astroturfing, the most shameful form of propaganda:
Penguin
#63
-
- Guest
- 1,892 posts
- -2 ₮
- Location:Dallas Texas
Posted 19 December 2006 - 05:21 PM
From wikipedia:
"Propaganda is a certain type of message, often deliberately misleading, aimed directly at manipulating the opinions or behavior of people, rather than impartially providing information."
What ExxonMobil and their partners are doing fit well into this definition. Just look at those videos:
We call it life
They are even using astroturfing, the most shameful form of propaganda:
Penguin
I think it's possible man is causing global warming. I also think it's highly likely we're not. At this time I think it's just to early to tell for sure and I don't support turning the world upside down when the answer is unknown. More research needs to be carried out for a much longer time, maybe 100 years will be necessary. This is important for all of us so I don't think we need to worry much about it not getting done. Right now there's to much politics involved to really get a clear answer.
If it turns out man is destroying the earth without trying, I think we will be able to save it. Once it becomes clear there's a problem even companys like Exxon will be working to solve it because if everyone dies that will be bad for business.
Probably this research will ultimately lead to us to being able to modify the climate much like we air condition our homes now.
sponsored ad
-
- Advert
#64
-
- Guest
- 1,892 posts
- -2 ₮
- Location:Dallas Texas
Posted 24 December 2006 - 04:49 AM
Here is a good example of a possible cause of global warming. It seems odd to me that no mention of global warming is made by the authors, but I feel that this helps illustrate my point. I believe the authors were afraid of scientific censure of some sort if they go against a popular opinion that happens to be politically correct.
This is the part that gets my attention.
"Evidence is mounting: the next solar cycle is going to be a big one. Solar cycle 24, due to peak in 2010 or 2011 "looks like its going to be one of the most intense cycles since record-keeping began almost 400 years ago," says solar physicist David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center. He and colleague Robert Wilson presented this conclusion last week at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco.
According to their analysis, the next Solar Maximum should peak around 2010 with a sunspot number of 160 plus or minus 25. This would make it one of the strongest solar cycles of the past fifty years—which is to say, one of the strongest in recorded history. Astronomers have been counting sunspots since the days of Galileo, watching solar activity rise and fall every 11 years. Curiously, four of the five biggest cycles on record have come in the past 50 years. "Cycle 24 should fit right into that pattern," says Hathaway".
Biggest in 400 years. This doesn't prove global warming, but to disregard the sun as a possible cause is stupid IMHO.
http://www.physorg.c...ws86010302.html
This is the part that gets my attention.
"Evidence is mounting: the next solar cycle is going to be a big one. Solar cycle 24, due to peak in 2010 or 2011 "looks like its going to be one of the most intense cycles since record-keeping began almost 400 years ago," says solar physicist David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center. He and colleague Robert Wilson presented this conclusion last week at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco.
According to their analysis, the next Solar Maximum should peak around 2010 with a sunspot number of 160 plus or minus 25. This would make it one of the strongest solar cycles of the past fifty years—which is to say, one of the strongest in recorded history. Astronomers have been counting sunspots since the days of Galileo, watching solar activity rise and fall every 11 years. Curiously, four of the five biggest cycles on record have come in the past 50 years. "Cycle 24 should fit right into that pattern," says Hathaway".
Biggest in 400 years. This doesn't prove global warming, but to disregard the sun as a possible cause is stupid IMHO.
http://www.physorg.c...ws86010302.html
Edited by biknut, 24 December 2006 - 05:00 AM.
#65
-
- Guest
- 1,892 posts
- -2 ₮
- Location:Dallas Texas
Posted 24 December 2006 - 03:06 PM
“Jay Pasachoff, an astronomy professor at Williams College, said that Pluto's global warming was "likely not connected with that of the Earth. The major way they could be connected is if the warming was caused by a large increase in sunlight. But the solar constant--the amount of sunlight received each second--is carefully monitored by spacecraft, and we know the sun's output is much too steady to be changing the temperature of Pluto."
This is very misleading. The truth is we've only been monitoring the sun by spacecraft for about 30 years. During those 30 years it's true the suns output has been fairly constant, but what professor Pasachoff is not saying is that it's probably higher than the previous 370 years.
#66
-
- Guest
- 1,892 posts
- -2 ₮
- Location:Dallas Texas
Posted 26 December 2006 - 12:11 AM
This is very interesting,
The bottom line, according to a group of experts not involved in any of these studies: Scientists don't know much about how sunlight interacts with our planet, and until they understand it, they can't accurately predict any possible effects of human activity on climate change.
Scientists Clueless over Sun's Effect on Earth
By Robert Roy Britt
LiveScience Senior Writer
posted: 05 May 2005
02:01 pm ET
While researchers argue whether Earth is getting warmer and if humans are contributing, a heated debate over the global effect of sunlight boiled to the surface today.
And in this debate there is little data to go on.
A confusing array of new and recent studies reveals that scientists know very little about how much sunlight is absorbed by Earth versus how much the planet reflects, how all this alters temperatures, and why any of it changes from one decade to the next.
Determining Earth's reflectance is crucial to understanding climate change, scientists agree.
Brighter outlook?
Reports in the late 1980s found the amount of sunlight reaching the planet's surface had declined by 4 to 6 percent since 1960. Suddenly, around 1990, that appears to have reversed.
"When we looked at the more recent data, lo and behold, the trend went the other way," said Charles Long, senior scientist at the Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
Long participated in one of two studies that uncovered this recent trend using satellite data and ground-based monitoring. Both studies are detailed in the May 6 issue of the journal Science.
Thing is, nobody knows what caused the apparent shift. Could be changes in cloud cover, they say, or maybe reduced effects of volcanic activity, or a reduction in pollutants.
This lack of understanding runs deeper.
A third study in the journal this week, tackling a related aspect of all this, finds that Earth has reflected more sunlight back into space from 2000 to 2004 than in years prior. However, a similar investigation last year found just the opposite. A lack of data suggests it's impossible to know which study is right.
The bottom line, according to a group of experts not involved in any of these studies: Scientists don't know much about how sunlight interacts with our planet, and until they understand it, they can't accurately predict any possible effects of human activity on climate change.
Reflecting on the problem
The percentage of sunlight reflected by back into space by Earth is called albedo. The planet's albedo, around 30 percent, is governed by cloud cover and the quantity of atmospheric particles called aerosols.
Amazingly, one of the best techniques for measuring Earth's albedo is to watch the Moon, which acts like a giant mirror. Sunlight that reflects of Earth in turn reflects off the Moon and can be measured from here. The phenomenon, called earthshine, was first noted by Leonardo da Vinci.
Albedo is a crucial factor in any climate change equation. But it is one of Earth's least-understood properties, says Robert Charlson, a University of Washington atmospheric scientist. "If we don't understand the albedo-related effects," Charlson said today, "then we can't understand the effects of greenhouse gases."
Charlson's co-authors in the analysis paper are Francisco Valero at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and John Seinfeld at the California Institute of Technology.
Plans and missions designed to study the effects of clouds and aerosols have been delayed or cancelled, Charlson and his colleagues write.
To properly study albedo, scientists want to put a craft about 1 million miles out in space at a point were it would orbit the Sun while constantly monitoring Earth.
The satellite, called Deep Space Climate Observatory, was once scheduled for launch from a space shuttle in 2000 but has never gotten off the ground. Two other Earth-orbiting satellites that would study the albedo have been built but don't have launch dates. And recent budget shifts at NASA and other agencies have meant some data that's available is not being analyzed, Charlson and his colleagues contend.
'Spurious argument'
While some scientists contend the global climate may not be warming or that there is no clear human contribution, most leading experts agree change is underway.
Grasping the situation is crucial, because if the climate warms as many expect, seas could rise enough to swamp many coastal communities by the end of this century.
Charlson says scientists understand to within 10 percent the impact of human activity on the production of greenhouse gases, things like carbon dioxide and methane that act like blanket to trap heat and, in theory, contribute to global warming. Yet their grasp of the human impact on albedo could be off by as much as 100 percent, he fears.
One theory is that if humans pump out more aerosols, the small particles will work to reflect sunlight and offset global warming. Charlson calls that "a spurious argument, a red herring."
Greenhouse gases are at work trapping heat 24 hours a day, he notes, while sunlight reflection is only at work on the day side of the planet. Further, he said, greenhouse gases can stay in the atmosphere for centuries, while aerosols last only a week or so.
"There is no simplistic balance between these two effects," Charlson said. "It isn't heating versus cooling. It's scientific understanding versus not understanding."
http://www.livescien...rth_bright.html
The bottom line, according to a group of experts not involved in any of these studies: Scientists don't know much about how sunlight interacts with our planet, and until they understand it, they can't accurately predict any possible effects of human activity on climate change.
Scientists Clueless over Sun's Effect on Earth
By Robert Roy Britt
LiveScience Senior Writer
posted: 05 May 2005
02:01 pm ET
While researchers argue whether Earth is getting warmer and if humans are contributing, a heated debate over the global effect of sunlight boiled to the surface today.
And in this debate there is little data to go on.
A confusing array of new and recent studies reveals that scientists know very little about how much sunlight is absorbed by Earth versus how much the planet reflects, how all this alters temperatures, and why any of it changes from one decade to the next.
Determining Earth's reflectance is crucial to understanding climate change, scientists agree.
Brighter outlook?
Reports in the late 1980s found the amount of sunlight reaching the planet's surface had declined by 4 to 6 percent since 1960. Suddenly, around 1990, that appears to have reversed.
"When we looked at the more recent data, lo and behold, the trend went the other way," said Charles Long, senior scientist at the Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
Long participated in one of two studies that uncovered this recent trend using satellite data and ground-based monitoring. Both studies are detailed in the May 6 issue of the journal Science.
Thing is, nobody knows what caused the apparent shift. Could be changes in cloud cover, they say, or maybe reduced effects of volcanic activity, or a reduction in pollutants.
This lack of understanding runs deeper.
A third study in the journal this week, tackling a related aspect of all this, finds that Earth has reflected more sunlight back into space from 2000 to 2004 than in years prior. However, a similar investigation last year found just the opposite. A lack of data suggests it's impossible to know which study is right.
The bottom line, according to a group of experts not involved in any of these studies: Scientists don't know much about how sunlight interacts with our planet, and until they understand it, they can't accurately predict any possible effects of human activity on climate change.
Reflecting on the problem
The percentage of sunlight reflected by back into space by Earth is called albedo. The planet's albedo, around 30 percent, is governed by cloud cover and the quantity of atmospheric particles called aerosols.
Amazingly, one of the best techniques for measuring Earth's albedo is to watch the Moon, which acts like a giant mirror. Sunlight that reflects of Earth in turn reflects off the Moon and can be measured from here. The phenomenon, called earthshine, was first noted by Leonardo da Vinci.
Albedo is a crucial factor in any climate change equation. But it is one of Earth's least-understood properties, says Robert Charlson, a University of Washington atmospheric scientist. "If we don't understand the albedo-related effects," Charlson said today, "then we can't understand the effects of greenhouse gases."
Charlson's co-authors in the analysis paper are Francisco Valero at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and John Seinfeld at the California Institute of Technology.
Plans and missions designed to study the effects of clouds and aerosols have been delayed or cancelled, Charlson and his colleagues write.
To properly study albedo, scientists want to put a craft about 1 million miles out in space at a point were it would orbit the Sun while constantly monitoring Earth.
The satellite, called Deep Space Climate Observatory, was once scheduled for launch from a space shuttle in 2000 but has never gotten off the ground. Two other Earth-orbiting satellites that would study the albedo have been built but don't have launch dates. And recent budget shifts at NASA and other agencies have meant some data that's available is not being analyzed, Charlson and his colleagues contend.
'Spurious argument'
While some scientists contend the global climate may not be warming or that there is no clear human contribution, most leading experts agree change is underway.
Grasping the situation is crucial, because if the climate warms as many expect, seas could rise enough to swamp many coastal communities by the end of this century.
Charlson says scientists understand to within 10 percent the impact of human activity on the production of greenhouse gases, things like carbon dioxide and methane that act like blanket to trap heat and, in theory, contribute to global warming. Yet their grasp of the human impact on albedo could be off by as much as 100 percent, he fears.
One theory is that if humans pump out more aerosols, the small particles will work to reflect sunlight and offset global warming. Charlson calls that "a spurious argument, a red herring."
Greenhouse gases are at work trapping heat 24 hours a day, he notes, while sunlight reflection is only at work on the day side of the planet. Further, he said, greenhouse gases can stay in the atmosphere for centuries, while aerosols last only a week or so.
"There is no simplistic balance between these two effects," Charlson said. "It isn't heating versus cooling. It's scientific understanding versus not understanding."
http://www.livescien...rth_bright.html
#67
-
- Guest
- 1,892 posts
- -2 ₮
- Location:Dallas Texas
Posted 26 December 2006 - 12:35 AM
This is another issue altogether. Underwater volcanoes. We know very little about them. I've read that it's believed they're at an all time high. This could very well be the reason for increased CO2.
Hydrothermal "Megaplume" Found in Indian Ocean
Brian Handwerk
for National Geographic News
December 12, 2005
An enormous hydrothermal "megaplume" found in the Indian Ocean serves as a dramatic reminder that underwater volcanoes likely play an important role in shaping Earth's ocean systems, scientists report.
The plume, which stretches some 43.5 miles (70 kilometers) long, appears to be active on a previously unseen scale.
"In a nutshell, this thing is at least 10 times—or possibly 20 times—bigger than anything of its kind that's been seen before," said Bramley Murton of the British National Oceanography Centre.
Scientists reported the finding last week at the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in San Francisco. Researchers also announced newly discovered deep-sea hydrothermal fields in the Arctic Ocean and the south Atlantic.
The appearance of hydrothermal vents around the world suggests that they are a far more common part of the ocean system than once believed and could be a major influence on circulation patterns and ocean chemistry.
Scientists are only beginning to identify the tectonic conditions that may indicate where the fields can be found, but the possible locations are increasing.
"I'd be surprised if in the next five years we didn't experience a mini-revolution in terms of finding these [fields] in places where they are not supposed to exist," said geophysicist Robert Reves-Sohn of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.
Volcanic Bombshell
Hydrothermal vents are volcanic hotspots that emit gasses and mineral-enriched water as hot as 760°F (400°C). The heat from these vents supports unique ecosystems where creatures survive using thermal and chemical energy in place of sunlight.
Megaplumes like the one found in the Indian Ocean are probably caused by undersea volcanic eruptions, though scientists aren't yet certain.
"Once formed they can possibly hang around for years," Murton said. The heat from such events could have a dramatic effect on ocean circulation, which plays a role in determining Earth's climate.
"The energy content is an order of magnitude greater [than ordinary plumes], and the thermal power may be many orders of magnitude greater," Murton said.
"A normal hydrothermal vent might produce something like 500 megawatts, while this is producing 100,000 megawatts. It's like an atom bomb down there."
Recent studies have attempted to factor the heat from the world's known hydrothermal ridges into ocean circulation models.
"Some studies estimate that for the Pacific, background thermal heating might increase ocean circulation by up to 50 percent," Murton said.
Regular hydrothermal fields stir the water for only a few hundred meters (about a thousand feet) above the ocean floor. "But these megaplumes can reach a column of 1,000 to 1,500 meters [3,280 to 4,920 feet], so it reaches right up into the midwater," he said.
But even the Indian Ocean megaplume may be small compared to larger underwater eruptions that have as yet gone undetected.
"At the moment those that we've seen have come from small eruptions in the larger scheme of things," he said.
"But we know when we look at the ocean floor that there have been much larger eruptions, so we can only speculate about what magnitude of event plumes would come from those."
The new data on hydrothermal fields and megaplumes underscores the fact that volcanic activity on the ocean floor remains a largely mysterious phenomenon.
"Ninety percent of the Earth's volcanic activity takes place underwater," Murton said. "Just because we can't see it doesn't mean it's not there."
Seafloor Treasures
In addition to their potential impacts on ocean systems, hydrothermal vents provide scientists with a tectonic window below the planet's surface.
The vents essentially form open rifts in the crust that allow chilled water to enter and cool the Earth's interior—offering scientists a peek at the geology inside.
Researchers at the AGU meeting reported on the state of current research to uncover the vents' scientific secrets.
They have determined, for example, that the vents are hotspots for precious metals, such as silver, gold, zinc, and copper.
As yet, these resources lie beyond the reach of commercial interests because mining the ocean floor strains the bottom line.
"The cost of working in the deep ocean is so extreme," explained Reves-Sohn of Woods Hole. "We have the same problem in the scientific community. We don't get to go to look at these places as much as we'd like."
Although active deep-sea hot springs haven't yielded their precious metals to humans, they have surrendered living resources that could prove more valuable.
"The oceans are a chemical soup," said Peter Rona, a marine geologist at the Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey.
"And the global diversity of these hot springs reported in these [AGU] sessions adds different chemical ingredients to that soup."
One of these ingredients is the heat-tolerant microbes that provide the base for the vents' ecosystems—converting chemical energy much as plants convert sunlight during photosynthesis.
"To everybody's surprise it is the microbes that live in these vents that are being used first [in commercial applications]," said Rona, who studies the microbes with support from the National Science Foundation and NOAA.
"There are compounds in the microbes that are already being used for industrial and medical applications. Compound enzymes used in detergents, food preservatives, [and] DNA 'fingerprinting' for both research and forensic purposes."
"Also, compounds are being tested by NIH for cancer treatment and other health applications," Rona added. "And it's just the dawn of exploration of these deep sea vents."
http://news.national..._megaplume.html
Hydrothermal "Megaplume" Found in Indian Ocean
Brian Handwerk
for National Geographic News
December 12, 2005
An enormous hydrothermal "megaplume" found in the Indian Ocean serves as a dramatic reminder that underwater volcanoes likely play an important role in shaping Earth's ocean systems, scientists report.
The plume, which stretches some 43.5 miles (70 kilometers) long, appears to be active on a previously unseen scale.
"In a nutshell, this thing is at least 10 times—or possibly 20 times—bigger than anything of its kind that's been seen before," said Bramley Murton of the British National Oceanography Centre.
Scientists reported the finding last week at the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in San Francisco. Researchers also announced newly discovered deep-sea hydrothermal fields in the Arctic Ocean and the south Atlantic.
The appearance of hydrothermal vents around the world suggests that they are a far more common part of the ocean system than once believed and could be a major influence on circulation patterns and ocean chemistry.
Scientists are only beginning to identify the tectonic conditions that may indicate where the fields can be found, but the possible locations are increasing.
"I'd be surprised if in the next five years we didn't experience a mini-revolution in terms of finding these [fields] in places where they are not supposed to exist," said geophysicist Robert Reves-Sohn of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.
Volcanic Bombshell
Hydrothermal vents are volcanic hotspots that emit gasses and mineral-enriched water as hot as 760°F (400°C). The heat from these vents supports unique ecosystems where creatures survive using thermal and chemical energy in place of sunlight.
Megaplumes like the one found in the Indian Ocean are probably caused by undersea volcanic eruptions, though scientists aren't yet certain.
"Once formed they can possibly hang around for years," Murton said. The heat from such events could have a dramatic effect on ocean circulation, which plays a role in determining Earth's climate.
"The energy content is an order of magnitude greater [than ordinary plumes], and the thermal power may be many orders of magnitude greater," Murton said.
"A normal hydrothermal vent might produce something like 500 megawatts, while this is producing 100,000 megawatts. It's like an atom bomb down there."
Recent studies have attempted to factor the heat from the world's known hydrothermal ridges into ocean circulation models.
"Some studies estimate that for the Pacific, background thermal heating might increase ocean circulation by up to 50 percent," Murton said.
Regular hydrothermal fields stir the water for only a few hundred meters (about a thousand feet) above the ocean floor. "But these megaplumes can reach a column of 1,000 to 1,500 meters [3,280 to 4,920 feet], so it reaches right up into the midwater," he said.
But even the Indian Ocean megaplume may be small compared to larger underwater eruptions that have as yet gone undetected.
"At the moment those that we've seen have come from small eruptions in the larger scheme of things," he said.
"But we know when we look at the ocean floor that there have been much larger eruptions, so we can only speculate about what magnitude of event plumes would come from those."
The new data on hydrothermal fields and megaplumes underscores the fact that volcanic activity on the ocean floor remains a largely mysterious phenomenon.
"Ninety percent of the Earth's volcanic activity takes place underwater," Murton said. "Just because we can't see it doesn't mean it's not there."
Seafloor Treasures
In addition to their potential impacts on ocean systems, hydrothermal vents provide scientists with a tectonic window below the planet's surface.
The vents essentially form open rifts in the crust that allow chilled water to enter and cool the Earth's interior—offering scientists a peek at the geology inside.
Researchers at the AGU meeting reported on the state of current research to uncover the vents' scientific secrets.
They have determined, for example, that the vents are hotspots for precious metals, such as silver, gold, zinc, and copper.
As yet, these resources lie beyond the reach of commercial interests because mining the ocean floor strains the bottom line.
"The cost of working in the deep ocean is so extreme," explained Reves-Sohn of Woods Hole. "We have the same problem in the scientific community. We don't get to go to look at these places as much as we'd like."
Although active deep-sea hot springs haven't yielded their precious metals to humans, they have surrendered living resources that could prove more valuable.
"The oceans are a chemical soup," said Peter Rona, a marine geologist at the Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey.
"And the global diversity of these hot springs reported in these [AGU] sessions adds different chemical ingredients to that soup."
One of these ingredients is the heat-tolerant microbes that provide the base for the vents' ecosystems—converting chemical energy much as plants convert sunlight during photosynthesis.
"To everybody's surprise it is the microbes that live in these vents that are being used first [in commercial applications]," said Rona, who studies the microbes with support from the National Science Foundation and NOAA.
"There are compounds in the microbes that are already being used for industrial and medical applications. Compound enzymes used in detergents, food preservatives, [and] DNA 'fingerprinting' for both research and forensic purposes."
"Also, compounds are being tested by NIH for cancer treatment and other health applications," Rona added. "And it's just the dawn of exploration of these deep sea vents."
http://news.national..._megaplume.html
#68
-
- Guest
- 1,892 posts
- -2 ₮
- Location:Dallas Texas
Posted 26 December 2006 - 12:57 AM
I think I've shown clearly that there's plenty good reason to have doubt about what's causing global warming. There's just too many unknowns to say man is the major reason at this time. Even if CO2 is the only reason, we can't at this time, accuratly tell where it's coming from.
#71
-
- Guest
- 1,777 posts
- 17 ₮
- Location:US
Posted 27 December 2006 - 11:39 PM
It looks like it might be coming from the cow crap. Anybody for going vegetarian?Even if CO2 is the only reason, we can't at this time, accuratly tell where it's coming from.
http://blog.sciam.co...=1&pb=1&ref=rss
December 27, 2006
Livestock use 30 percent of the land surface of the planet, generate more greenhouse gasses than transport
According to a report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, entitled "Livestock's Long Shadow":
The livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent -- 18 percent -- than transport.
...
Livestock now use 30 percent of the earth's entire land surface, mostly permanent pasture but also including 33 percent of the global arable land, [which is] used to produce feed for livestock
...
The livestock business is among the most damaging sectors to the earth's increasingly scarce water resources, contributing among other things to water pollution, euthropication and the degeneration of coral reefs.
...
Meat and dairy animals now account for about 20 percent of all terrestrial animal biomass.
I suppose we can add to the list of "simple things you can do to save the Earth" this bon mot:
Eat Less Meat
Not to mention the fact that it also has the potential to extend your life.
#73
-
- Guest
- 2,008 posts
- 141 ₮
- Location:Dallas, Texas
Posted 28 December 2006 - 09:59 PM
Not an argument I care to get involved in, but I'll dump a few posts I made in a private list here, regarding global warming. I have quoted people on this list that will remain anon:
~~~~~~~~
Why would anyone in their right mind be opposed to global warming,
especially when there's so much evidence that it's a serious concern?!
Or is it that too many people need to be right at the edge of the
cliff before the thought finally penetrates: "Okay, yeah, we've got a
situation here." The fact is, in the case of global warming it is far
smarter to be safe, than sorry, and fall on the side of doing
something about it. Corporations -- the true power in America -- will
fight this with all they have, though. And, they'll release 100's of
reports saying the problem is not real, over-blown, and so on. And
most Americans will fall for it. And why not, we fall for everything
else (adding fluoride in water, there were weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq, statins extend life spans, McDonald's cares about
kids because they have kids charities, on and on).
~~~~~~~~
On the face of it, what you're implying is that anything that goes
through the media is untrustworthy. There are many facets of this
which I can comment on, but I'll just focus on one so as not to go off
on a tangent. And that's the facet that the media (TV, web,
newspapers, etc.) is not itself a problem, it's the reporting (or lack
of). But there's a great deal of purely factual information available
through and on the media, such as in the area of scientific research
and discovery. Much of what is on the media regarding global warming
is purely factual, reported through scientific journals. (If you pay
attention to www.ScienceDaily.com each day, you'll likely see an
average of one article a day on global warming, merely factually
pointing out results of studies, but not being alarmist in the least.
Just the facts, ma'am.) Therefore, it's up to us as individuals to
come to our own conclusions. My conclusion is that global warming is
a real concern with hard evidence, and the arrow is pointing to
near-term world disaster.
I've noted throughout my life that the world-at-large tends to be slow
to react to slow-rising concerns like this, and tends to react
after-the-fact rather than take preventative measures. As a species,
I can only suppose that we did not evolve with the idea of prevention
as a survival strategy -- we are a reactionary adaptive species. In
other words, we evolved to be shortsighted. And it takes self-effort
to overcome this hereditary coding.
> I'm not a scientist or a politician, but I do think about
> things. I'm also a skeptic. I do not blindly swallow everything the media
> throws out there.
The fact that you lack a scientific background really hampers your
ability to make a sound judgment on this issue, then. From all of my
reading, it's hard to find actual scientists who do not think there's
a serious problem that we should address as a top priority. I think in
the next year of two we'll see the scientific community make a lot
more noise about global warming, as it's almost getting laughable how
clear it is that we have a real problem.
> I don't believe that the changes we're seeing are either
> catastrophic or caused by humans. I know that there are scientists who
> question Global Warming
The only thing I've seen reasonably questioned are the causes. Man
seems to be at the top of the list, though.
> Show me some real, factual evidence that makes sense.
This reminds me of a Katrina joke: A man was in his home as the
levee's broke, and a police car drove by to offer the man a ride to
safety. "No thanks, I put my life in God's hands." Hours later, the
water up to the man's knees, a boat comes by and a man yells out for
the stranded man to jump in. "No thanks, I will wait for the Lord
Above to rescue me." Finally, hours later, with the stranded man
standing at the highest point on his roof, water lapping closer, a
helicopter comes by with its spotlight, and a man with a megaphone
yells down, "I'll lower a ladder. Quick, climb up and save yourself."
The stranded man waves the 'copter away, shouting back, "God will
rescue me...I am in his hands." Later...at the Pearly Gates, the man
questions Peter, "I trusted in God to save me...what did I do wrong?"
Peter smiles, "Hey Pal, he sent you a car, a boat and a helicopter!"
In other words, the evidence appears almost daily. Quit ignoring it!
> I agree that there has
> been Climate Change. News Flash. Climate on the planet Earth is constantly
> changing.
Is this a serious counter-argument?
> The facts aren't all in yet.
And they never will be as measured by many skeptics. I frankly do not
read any opinion pieces on global warming. None. I only read what's
reported in the journals (mostly just the abstracts that appear
online). It's beyond conclusive in my opinion, as someone who's been
a passionate reader and follower of science all my life.
~~~~~~~~
Even the oil companies can no longer flatly deny it, for fear of
looking absolutely foolish. About 10 months ago, for example, Exxon
itself released a statement saying, "[we] recognize that the
accumulation of greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere poses risks
that may prove significant to society and ecosystems."
http://www2.exxonmob...ate_science.asp
Their CEO recently said, "climate change is a serious issue." But
it's harder to get them to admit much else -- they are only going to
give as little as they have to until forced to give more.
More insidious, though, is that they fund companies at arm's length to
fuel the skeptics, such as the Exxon financed puppet, the Competitive
Enterprise Institute ( http://www.cei.org/ ). CEI runs ads, for
example, in which a no-nonsense woman standing among a beautiful
wilderness claims: "Carbon dioxide. They call it pollution. We call it life."
But, a scientist whose study was referenced in the ad said the CEI twisted
his research to "mislead the public."
More from this scientist:
Warren Washington, a senior scientist at the National Center for
Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado, accuses the Bush
administration of suppressing climate change data, limiting
journalists' access to government scientists, and rewriting news
releases on global climate change. According to Washington, Bush
administration officials are "trying to confuse the public." He says
these tactics are taking place at numerous federal agencies, including
NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA ), and
the US Forest Service.
http://www.cooperati...EPANatlStanLead
ExxonMobile funds scores of smaller groups in such a way as to be
mostly untraceable, and these groups do nothing but release articles
and twisted studies designed to confuse the public and give skeptics
enough ammo to seemingly operate with loaded guns. These campaigns
practically always work, as far back as they've been in use. (In
addition, EM spends over $10 million a year lobbying government.
Think that doesn't buy votes/laws? And 1.2m went to Bush in 2000 --
oil men stick together.)
http://www.corporate...org.uk/?lid=294
There's a lot more to this that is easily dug up with minimal
research. But again, science news sites like Science Daily tell all
that you need to know about the story. People that have already
picked a side won't benefit much, of course. (Two years ago, I was on
the skeptic side, 100%. Eventually, the evidence becomes
overwhelming.)
~~~~~~~~
>>> Now look at the ice in Antarctica: Getting thicker in places!
Are you referring to the report in Greenland?
http://www.spaceref.....html?pid=18231
"A Norwegian-led team used the ERS data to measure elevation changes
in the Greenland Ice Sheet from 1992 to 2003, finding recent growth in
the interior sections estimated at around six centimetres per year
during the study period."
Note from the same research: "The result is a mixed picture, with a
net increase of 6.4 centimetres per year in the interior area above
1500 metres elevation. Below that altitude, the elevation-change rate
is minus 2.0 cm per year, broadly matching reported thinning in the
ice-sheet margins."
And more:
"The team, led by Professor Ola M. Johannessen of NERSC, ascribe this
interior growth of the Greenland Ice Sheet to increased snowfall
linked to variability in regional atmospheric circulation known as the
North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). First discovered in the 1920s, the
NAO acts in a similar way to the El Niño phenomenon in the Pacific,
contributing to climate fluctuations across the North Atlantic and
Europe.
"Professor Johannessen commented: "This strong negative correlation
between winter elevation changes and the NAO index, suggests an
underappreciated role of the winter season and the NAO for elevation
changes -- a wildcard in Greenland Ice Sheet mass balance scenarios
under global warming."
You'll note that the increase of ice at the higher elevation, as
indicated by the Professor, may be the result of global warming. It
makes sense, too. Think about it: The ice at the lower levels --
where it's always warmer -- is melting, and the resulting additional
water vapor is condensing at the higher altitude, causing it to get
thicker.
Yet, the spin by the puppet agencies only tells a very small part of the
story ("The ice-sheet is growing!!!"). Well yeah, because down below
it's melting.
~~~~~~~~
Why would anyone in their right mind be opposed to global warming,
especially when there's so much evidence that it's a serious concern?!
Or is it that too many people need to be right at the edge of the
cliff before the thought finally penetrates: "Okay, yeah, we've got a
situation here." The fact is, in the case of global warming it is far
smarter to be safe, than sorry, and fall on the side of doing
something about it. Corporations -- the true power in America -- will
fight this with all they have, though. And, they'll release 100's of
reports saying the problem is not real, over-blown, and so on. And
most Americans will fall for it. And why not, we fall for everything
else (adding fluoride in water, there were weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq, statins extend life spans, McDonald's cares about
kids because they have kids charities, on and on).
~~~~~~~~
On the face of it, what you're implying is that anything that goes
through the media is untrustworthy. There are many facets of this
which I can comment on, but I'll just focus on one so as not to go off
on a tangent. And that's the facet that the media (TV, web,
newspapers, etc.) is not itself a problem, it's the reporting (or lack
of). But there's a great deal of purely factual information available
through and on the media, such as in the area of scientific research
and discovery. Much of what is on the media regarding global warming
is purely factual, reported through scientific journals. (If you pay
attention to www.ScienceDaily.com each day, you'll likely see an
average of one article a day on global warming, merely factually
pointing out results of studies, but not being alarmist in the least.
Just the facts, ma'am.) Therefore, it's up to us as individuals to
come to our own conclusions. My conclusion is that global warming is
a real concern with hard evidence, and the arrow is pointing to
near-term world disaster.
I've noted throughout my life that the world-at-large tends to be slow
to react to slow-rising concerns like this, and tends to react
after-the-fact rather than take preventative measures. As a species,
I can only suppose that we did not evolve with the idea of prevention
as a survival strategy -- we are a reactionary adaptive species. In
other words, we evolved to be shortsighted. And it takes self-effort
to overcome this hereditary coding.
> I'm not a scientist or a politician, but I do think about
> things. I'm also a skeptic. I do not blindly swallow everything the media
> throws out there.
The fact that you lack a scientific background really hampers your
ability to make a sound judgment on this issue, then. From all of my
reading, it's hard to find actual scientists who do not think there's
a serious problem that we should address as a top priority. I think in
the next year of two we'll see the scientific community make a lot
more noise about global warming, as it's almost getting laughable how
clear it is that we have a real problem.
> I don't believe that the changes we're seeing are either
> catastrophic or caused by humans. I know that there are scientists who
> question Global Warming
The only thing I've seen reasonably questioned are the causes. Man
seems to be at the top of the list, though.
> Show me some real, factual evidence that makes sense.
This reminds me of a Katrina joke: A man was in his home as the
levee's broke, and a police car drove by to offer the man a ride to
safety. "No thanks, I put my life in God's hands." Hours later, the
water up to the man's knees, a boat comes by and a man yells out for
the stranded man to jump in. "No thanks, I will wait for the Lord
Above to rescue me." Finally, hours later, with the stranded man
standing at the highest point on his roof, water lapping closer, a
helicopter comes by with its spotlight, and a man with a megaphone
yells down, "I'll lower a ladder. Quick, climb up and save yourself."
The stranded man waves the 'copter away, shouting back, "God will
rescue me...I am in his hands." Later...at the Pearly Gates, the man
questions Peter, "I trusted in God to save me...what did I do wrong?"
Peter smiles, "Hey Pal, he sent you a car, a boat and a helicopter!"
In other words, the evidence appears almost daily. Quit ignoring it!
> I agree that there has
> been Climate Change. News Flash. Climate on the planet Earth is constantly
> changing.
Is this a serious counter-argument?
> The facts aren't all in yet.
And they never will be as measured by many skeptics. I frankly do not
read any opinion pieces on global warming. None. I only read what's
reported in the journals (mostly just the abstracts that appear
online). It's beyond conclusive in my opinion, as someone who's been
a passionate reader and follower of science all my life.
~~~~~~~~
Even the oil companies can no longer flatly deny it, for fear of
looking absolutely foolish. About 10 months ago, for example, Exxon
itself released a statement saying, "[we] recognize that the
accumulation of greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere poses risks
that may prove significant to society and ecosystems."
http://www2.exxonmob...ate_science.asp
Their CEO recently said, "climate change is a serious issue." But
it's harder to get them to admit much else -- they are only going to
give as little as they have to until forced to give more.
More insidious, though, is that they fund companies at arm's length to
fuel the skeptics, such as the Exxon financed puppet, the Competitive
Enterprise Institute ( http://www.cei.org/ ). CEI runs ads, for
example, in which a no-nonsense woman standing among a beautiful
wilderness claims: "Carbon dioxide. They call it pollution. We call it life."
But, a scientist whose study was referenced in the ad said the CEI twisted
his research to "mislead the public."
More from this scientist:
Warren Washington, a senior scientist at the National Center for
Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado, accuses the Bush
administration of suppressing climate change data, limiting
journalists' access to government scientists, and rewriting news
releases on global climate change. According to Washington, Bush
administration officials are "trying to confuse the public." He says
these tactics are taking place at numerous federal agencies, including
NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA ), and
the US Forest Service.
http://www.cooperati...EPANatlStanLead
ExxonMobile funds scores of smaller groups in such a way as to be
mostly untraceable, and these groups do nothing but release articles
and twisted studies designed to confuse the public and give skeptics
enough ammo to seemingly operate with loaded guns. These campaigns
practically always work, as far back as they've been in use. (In
addition, EM spends over $10 million a year lobbying government.
Think that doesn't buy votes/laws? And 1.2m went to Bush in 2000 --
oil men stick together.)
http://www.corporate...org.uk/?lid=294
There's a lot more to this that is easily dug up with minimal
research. But again, science news sites like Science Daily tell all
that you need to know about the story. People that have already
picked a side won't benefit much, of course. (Two years ago, I was on
the skeptic side, 100%. Eventually, the evidence becomes
overwhelming.)
~~~~~~~~
>>> Now look at the ice in Antarctica: Getting thicker in places!
Are you referring to the report in Greenland?
http://www.spaceref.....html?pid=18231
"A Norwegian-led team used the ERS data to measure elevation changes
in the Greenland Ice Sheet from 1992 to 2003, finding recent growth in
the interior sections estimated at around six centimetres per year
during the study period."
Note from the same research: "The result is a mixed picture, with a
net increase of 6.4 centimetres per year in the interior area above
1500 metres elevation. Below that altitude, the elevation-change rate
is minus 2.0 cm per year, broadly matching reported thinning in the
ice-sheet margins."
And more:
"The team, led by Professor Ola M. Johannessen of NERSC, ascribe this
interior growth of the Greenland Ice Sheet to increased snowfall
linked to variability in regional atmospheric circulation known as the
North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). First discovered in the 1920s, the
NAO acts in a similar way to the El Niño phenomenon in the Pacific,
contributing to climate fluctuations across the North Atlantic and
Europe.
"Professor Johannessen commented: "This strong negative correlation
between winter elevation changes and the NAO index, suggests an
underappreciated role of the winter season and the NAO for elevation
changes -- a wildcard in Greenland Ice Sheet mass balance scenarios
under global warming."
You'll note that the increase of ice at the higher elevation, as
indicated by the Professor, may be the result of global warming. It
makes sense, too. Think about it: The ice at the lower levels --
where it's always warmer -- is melting, and the resulting additional
water vapor is condensing at the higher altitude, causing it to get
thicker.
Yet, the spin by the puppet agencies only tells a very small part of the
story ("The ice-sheet is growing!!!"). Well yeah, because down below
it's melting.
#74
-
- Guest
- 2,616 posts
- 163 ₮
- Location:Texas
Posted 28 December 2006 - 10:30 PM
Let us take the assumption that there is a man-made global warming issue that is going to result in disaster.
One thing I question is the amount of prevention vs. adaption that is optimum. It seems to be the root of the issue. The everyone do their small part thing is not going to get us far enough to prevent it, if we are as close to disaster as many claim.
I see this with many issues, one side acts as alarmists. The other side says, OK, given the data we have what is the best thing we can do to ensure the best and most efficient plan is put in place. How are we going to put this in place, what will it affect, etc? If there is not any solid plan or practical way to solve it with our current understanding of the issue, we need more data and research. How much prevention and what in the meantime, and how much help vs. hurt will it be? If there is more action on these latter questions, there will be more progress. Without these questions being answered, I doubt yelling at the top of your lungs for all eternity will help the issue at all.
One thing I question is the amount of prevention vs. adaption that is optimum. It seems to be the root of the issue. The everyone do their small part thing is not going to get us far enough to prevent it, if we are as close to disaster as many claim.
I see this with many issues, one side acts as alarmists. The other side says, OK, given the data we have what is the best thing we can do to ensure the best and most efficient plan is put in place. How are we going to put this in place, what will it affect, etc? If there is not any solid plan or practical way to solve it with our current understanding of the issue, we need more data and research. How much prevention and what in the meantime, and how much help vs. hurt will it be? If there is more action on these latter questions, there will be more progress. Without these questions being answered, I doubt yelling at the top of your lungs for all eternity will help the issue at all.
#75
-
- Guest
- 1,777 posts
- 17 ₮
- Location:US
Posted 29 December 2006 - 02:26 AM
Developing a way of life without meat, money, and motor vehicles seems to be the right thing to do under the circumstances. These things lead to pain, suffering and death. With disaster looming because of global warming, our focus should be on developing a simpler lifestyle that will lead to a longer, healthier and happier lifespan. I think this is what is meant by making our robes white in the blood of the lamb during the "great tribulation". See Revelation 7:13-17.
Then one of the elders asked me, "These in white robes—who are they, and where did they come from?"
I answered, "Sir, you know."
And he said, "These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Therefore,
"they are before the throne of God
and serve him day and night in his temple;
and he who sits on the throne will spread his tent over them.
Never again will they hunger;
never again will they thirst.
The sun will not beat upon them,
nor any scorching heat.
For the Lamb at the center of the throne will be their shepherd;
he will lead them to springs of living water.
And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes."
#76
-
- Guest
- 1,892 posts
- -2 ₮
- Location:Dallas Texas
Posted 29 December 2006 - 07:24 AM
[quote]Developing a way of life without meat, money, and motor vehicles seems to be the right thing to do under the circumstances. These things lead to pain, suffering and death. [quote]
No offence meant to elijah3, but I'm sorry, I have a fear that this kind of thinking is the real force behind the idea that global warming is caused by man. Global warming has to be caused by man or doing any of these things wouldn't make much difference.
There are many environmentalists that think this way and it makes me have suspicion of many of the reports. It's kind of the opposite of other peoples suspicion that oil companies drive the reports stating that global warming is not real or not caused by man.
Who's right?
Some are afraid of evil oil companies. I'm just as afraid of nut ball environmentalists. Think Al Gore.
No offence meant to elijah3, but I'm sorry, I have a fear that this kind of thinking is the real force behind the idea that global warming is caused by man. Global warming has to be caused by man or doing any of these things wouldn't make much difference.
There are many environmentalists that think this way and it makes me have suspicion of many of the reports. It's kind of the opposite of other peoples suspicion that oil companies drive the reports stating that global warming is not real or not caused by man.
Who's right?
Some are afraid of evil oil companies. I'm just as afraid of nut ball environmentalists. Think Al Gore.
#77
-
- Guest
- 1,777 posts
- 17 ₮
- Location:US
Posted 29 December 2006 - 03:47 PM
Biknut, you might consider voicing your skepticism, at http://www.nerc.ac.u...bate.aspx?did=1, and have a real environmental scientist respond. This website, http://blog.sciam.co...1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1, says you have until 1/31/07 to do it. I believe people need to know the truth about global warming so they can begin to make informed decisions and proper lifestyle choices.
#78
-
- Guest
- 1,892 posts
- -2 ₮
- Location:Dallas Texas
Posted 05 January 2007 - 07:55 AM
I think I could live with this. I already did most of it.
To reduce individual emissions dramatically, only a few minor lifestyle changes are needed: Action CO2 savings
Replace the 20-year-old fridge with an energy-saver model. 3,000 pounds.
Send out one fewer 30-gallon bag of garbage per week. 300 pounds.
Leave the car at home two days per week. 1,590 pounds.
Recycle cans, bottles, plastic, cardboard and newspapers. 850 pounds.
Switch two standard light bulbs to fluorescents. 1,000 pounds
Replace the current shower head with a low-flow model. 300 pounds.
Turn the thermostat down two degrees for one year. 500 pounds
Cut vehicle fuel use by 10 gallons in 2003. 200 pounds
Switch from hot to warm or cold water for laundry. 600 pounds
If these steps were taken by just 20% of U.S., Japanese, Canadian and European inhabitants, world CO2 emission levels would drop to a point that the human factor would be vastly reduced as a source of global warming, and the day when the inevitable climate shift occurs could be delayed for years, perhaps centuries.
To reduce individual emissions dramatically, only a few minor lifestyle changes are needed: Action CO2 savings
Replace the 20-year-old fridge with an energy-saver model. 3,000 pounds.
Send out one fewer 30-gallon bag of garbage per week. 300 pounds.
Leave the car at home two days per week. 1,590 pounds.
Recycle cans, bottles, plastic, cardboard and newspapers. 850 pounds.
Switch two standard light bulbs to fluorescents. 1,000 pounds
Replace the current shower head with a low-flow model. 300 pounds.
Turn the thermostat down two degrees for one year. 500 pounds
Cut vehicle fuel use by 10 gallons in 2003. 200 pounds
Switch from hot to warm or cold water for laundry. 600 pounds
If these steps were taken by just 20% of U.S., Japanese, Canadian and European inhabitants, world CO2 emission levels would drop to a point that the human factor would be vastly reduced as a source of global warming, and the day when the inevitable climate shift occurs could be delayed for years, perhaps centuries.
#79
-
- Guest
- 1,777 posts
- 17 ₮
- Location:US
Posted 05 January 2007 - 12:37 PM
You must of changed your tune with all the recent global warming news? Even Bush is starting to bend a little bit. See news article below:I think I could live with this. I already did most of it.
To reduce individual emissions dramatically, only a few minor lifestyle changes are needed: Action CO2 savings
Replace the 20-year-old fridge with an energy-saver model. 3,000 pounds.
Send out one fewer 30-gallon bag of garbage per week. 300 pounds.
Leave the car at home two days per week. 1,590 pounds.
Recycle cans, bottles, plastic, cardboard and newspapers. 850 pounds.
Switch two standard light bulbs to fluorescents. 1,000 pounds
Replace the current shower head with a low-flow model. 300 pounds.
Turn the thermostat down two degrees for one year. 500 pounds
Cut vehicle fuel use by 10 gallons in 2003. 200 pounds
Switch from hot to warm or cold water for laundry. 600 pounds
If these steps were taken by just 20% of U.S., Japanese, Canadian and European inhabitants, world CO2 emission levels would drop to a point that the human factor would be vastly reduced as a source of global warming, and the day when the inevitable climate shift occurs could be delayed for years, perhaps centuries.
http://edition.cnn.c...merkel.bush.ap/
Merkel, Bush talk climate change
POSTED: 0855 GMT (1655 HKT), January 5, 2007
WASHINGTON (AP) -- U.S. President George W. Bush and German Chancellor Angela Merkel are pledging closer cooperation on combating global warming and in trying to prod a Middle East peace, brushing aside lingering differences between the two countries.
Merkel was in Washington for a brief visit Thursday just days after Germany assumed the rotating presidencies of the European Union and the Group of Eight major industrialized nations. She said she intended the visit as a signal that trans-Atlantic relations would be an important item for Germany during its six months as leader of Europe and the G-8.
"The fact that this trip here to Washington happened today is certainly not a matter of coincidence," Merkel said. "It is clearly an expression of the fact that we share values, that there are a lot of common interests between our two countries, and that there is also a lot of need for enhanced cooperation between the European Union and the United States of America."
The two leaders, speaking at a joint White House news conference after talks, said they conferred on issues ranging from war and energy problems to the economy, trade and dealing with the conflict in Sudan's Darfur region. They also touched on issues that have divided Europe and the United States during Bush's presidency, including policies on global warming and Iraq, but brushed aside lingering differences.
Merkel welcomed what she said was Bush's willingness to confront climate change. In his own comments on the subject, however, Bush did not endorse some of the tight environmental standards favored by Germany and other European nations.
"We talked about climate change, and I assured the chancellor I'm committed to promoting new technologies that will promote energy efficiency and do a better job protecting the environment," Bush said. "I believe there is a chance now to put behind us the old stale debates of the past."
It was a reference to past differences between Bush and European allies on the Kyoto accords, an international agreement to reduce pollution that most sciences say produces global warming. The pact has not been ratified by the United States. ...
My question is, will this be "too little too late" as they say?
#80
-
- Guest
- 1,892 posts
- -2 ₮
- Location:Dallas Texas
Posted 05 January 2007 - 03:46 PM
Yeah I saw that news article. I don't really question that there is climate change. There's always climate change. What I question is that it's caused by man, however recommendations like these make a lot of since to me.
Replace the 20-year-old fridge with an energy-saver model. 3,000 pounds.
Send out one fewer 30-gallon bag of garbage per week. 300 pounds.
Leave the car at home two days per week. 1,590 pounds.
Recycle cans, bottles, plastic, cardboard and newspapers. 850 pounds.
Switch two standard light bulbs to fluorescents. 1,000 pounds
Replace the current shower head with a low-flow model. 300 pounds.
Turn the thermostat down two degrees for one year. 500 pounds
Cut vehicle fuel use by 10 gallons in 2003. 200 pounds
Switch from hot to warm or cold water for laundry. 600 pounds
Most of these things don't cost very much to implement so peoples lives won't be impacted in a negitive way. I might even go a little farther with some of them. I think more laws should be enacted to get more people to ride motorcycles. Even large motorcycles can get 60 to 70 mpg. The commie Democrats love to enact tax incentives. Where are they?
This ones not as painless though. When I first heard about it I didn't believe it, but it turned out to be true.
Last year, in 2006 a federal law was passed forcing air conditioning manufactures to up the efficiency of residential condensing units to 13 seer. This is proving to be very expensive for my customers because most people don't have the indoor equipment to work with these new units so the cost of installation is more than twice what it would have been before this law went into effect. Just the condensing unit alone is a $1000 more than a 2005 unit. In 2005 I could replace your condensing unit for under $2000 in most cases and get you up and running. Now because of the need to replace the inside equipment in almost all cases, and because of the fact that the new high efficient equipment costs more than the old equipment, it costs people $5000 to $7000 to get a/c back online. These are just my reasonable charges. Many crooks charge more than twice this much. There is some tax relief but it doesn't help enough. Most people don't even know about this yet. Did you? Do you care? You will when it happens to you.
Replace the 20-year-old fridge with an energy-saver model. 3,000 pounds.
Send out one fewer 30-gallon bag of garbage per week. 300 pounds.
Leave the car at home two days per week. 1,590 pounds.
Recycle cans, bottles, plastic, cardboard and newspapers. 850 pounds.
Switch two standard light bulbs to fluorescents. 1,000 pounds
Replace the current shower head with a low-flow model. 300 pounds.
Turn the thermostat down two degrees for one year. 500 pounds
Cut vehicle fuel use by 10 gallons in 2003. 200 pounds
Switch from hot to warm or cold water for laundry. 600 pounds
Most of these things don't cost very much to implement so peoples lives won't be impacted in a negitive way. I might even go a little farther with some of them. I think more laws should be enacted to get more people to ride motorcycles. Even large motorcycles can get 60 to 70 mpg. The commie Democrats love to enact tax incentives. Where are they?
This ones not as painless though. When I first heard about it I didn't believe it, but it turned out to be true.
Last year, in 2006 a federal law was passed forcing air conditioning manufactures to up the efficiency of residential condensing units to 13 seer. This is proving to be very expensive for my customers because most people don't have the indoor equipment to work with these new units so the cost of installation is more than twice what it would have been before this law went into effect. Just the condensing unit alone is a $1000 more than a 2005 unit. In 2005 I could replace your condensing unit for under $2000 in most cases and get you up and running. Now because of the need to replace the inside equipment in almost all cases, and because of the fact that the new high efficient equipment costs more than the old equipment, it costs people $5000 to $7000 to get a/c back online. These are just my reasonable charges. Many crooks charge more than twice this much. There is some tax relief but it doesn't help enough. Most people don't even know about this yet. Did you? Do you care? You will when it happens to you.
#81
-
- Life Member, Guardian
- 8,116 posts
- 242 ₮
- Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York
- ✔
Posted 05 January 2007 - 03:58 PM
Today is January 5th and the weather in the NYC area may reach 70 degrees (some 30 to 40 degrees above normal). We have had no snow and there is no ice anywhere or snow particularly in the entire North East.
Santa brought us Spring for Christmas. We have had a Carolina winter so far and the prospect is for more of the same.
The up side, yesterday the oil market crashed because heating oil consumption this year has fallen off dramatically.
The downside; ski lodges can't even make artificial snow.
Upside, construction and growing seasons have been extended dramatically.
Downside, ticks and infectious diseases like mosquito borne West Nile Encephalitis and others are slated not only to hit early and hard this year unless we suffer a return to serious draught; the Ticks are still biting and spreading Lyme's disease even now as they have not been suppressed for winter. We are also facing damaging algae blooms across many of our lakes early in the spring because the water has not chilled sufficiently.
BTW these are not theories, these are demonstrable observations. This isn't *going* to happen it IS happening as I write. Last night it was 55 degrees at midnight.
Santa brought us Spring for Christmas. We have had a Carolina winter so far and the prospect is for more of the same.
The up side, yesterday the oil market crashed because heating oil consumption this year has fallen off dramatically.
The downside; ski lodges can't even make artificial snow.
Upside, construction and growing seasons have been extended dramatically.
Downside, ticks and infectious diseases like mosquito borne West Nile Encephalitis and others are slated not only to hit early and hard this year unless we suffer a return to serious draught; the Ticks are still biting and spreading Lyme's disease even now as they have not been suppressed for winter. We are also facing damaging algae blooms across many of our lakes early in the spring because the water has not chilled sufficiently.
BTW these are not theories, these are demonstrable observations. This isn't *going* to happen it IS happening as I write. Last night it was 55 degrees at midnight.
#83
-
- Guest
- 1,892 posts
- -2 ₮
- Location:Dallas Texas
Posted 05 January 2007 - 04:09 PM
BTW these are not theories, these are demonstrable observations. This isn't *going* to happen it IS happening as I write. Last night it was 55 degrees at midnight.
Lazarus, the thing that is theory, is that it's caused by man.
#84
-
- Life Member, Guardian
- 8,116 posts
- 242 ₮
- Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York
- ✔
Posted 05 January 2007 - 04:16 PM
Lazarus, the thing that is theory, is that it's caused by man.
I have observed that it is.
I am not saying nature has no role to play but I have studied and personally observed the impact of pollution related weather impacts to confirm by observation that humans do contribute to not only the tipping point for the impact but are accelerating the rate of climate change and are increasing the severity of the impacts being observed.
I am a lot older than many people here so I can remember when the Florida coast was hundreds of feet father out. In fact when I free dive well over a thousand feet off the Palm Beach shore one of my favorite weird sites is to chase skates along the broken pieces of the original US highway 1 that is now at the bottom of about 20 feet of ocean.
Oh yeah I forgot to mention that the highway was on the maps and in use 60 years ago.
#86
-
- Life Member, Guardian
- 8,116 posts
- 242 ₮
- Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York
- ✔
Posted 05 January 2007 - 04:29 PM
Oh and I really shouldn't forget this anecdote either.
My neighbor was mowing his lawn on January 2nd. I will probably have to mow the lawn by next week.
My neighbor was mowing his lawn on January 2nd. I will probably have to mow the lawn by next week.
#88
-
- Guest, Guardian
- 6,471 posts
- 155 ₮
- Location:Silicon Valley, CA
Posted 05 January 2007 - 05:27 PM
Problem is, the north pole doesn't have a land mass, so you can only move so far north once the caps melt. After that, you'll have to move to Antarctica...
I don't think you'd have to move to the north pole. Alaska has plenty of unused landmass, as does the vast majority of canada (or maybe they really have amassed 90% of their population along the american border in preparation for invasion
) )Of course rather than moving north you could simply do what we do in the tropics. Use air-conditioning and bug repellent.
A change in the good growing regions toward the north might be a good thing, as we presently are building on top of all those that presently exist.
Really, I'm surprised that such a group as immortalists, who believe in the ability of mind to overcome obstacles even as daunting as death itself should be so worried about a problem as mundane as a few degree increase in temperature.
#89
-
- Life Member, Guardian
- 8,116 posts
- 242 ₮
- Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York
- ✔
Posted 05 January 2007 - 05:40 PM
elrond]
Really, I'm surprised that such a group as immortalists, who believe in the ability of mind to overcome obstacles even as daunting as death itself should be so worried about a problem as mundane as a few degree increase in temperature.
And just what kind of immortalists would we be if we didn't pay attention to the long term impacts of things like climate change and try to develop effective countermeasures to minimize the severity of the result?
Short sighted immortalists?
That strikes me as an oxymoron elrond.
)
sponsored ad
-
- Advert
#90
-
- Guest
- 5,798 posts
- 11 ₮
- Location:Taipei
- NO
Posted 05 January 2007 - 06:16 PM
I've always hated winters anyway. (j/k)
I made a mistake in not checking the temperature today before leaving home. Half way to the light rail I was carrying my coat in hand. It is freakishly warm today, I can't deny that, just as it was in DC when I went down there last month (I believe they shattered a few records in decemeber).
Is any of this statistically significant? eerrr, wrong question. Is it valid to use extremely limited personal observations to make empirical conclusions? I don't believe so.
I prefer to analyze the statistics. And yes, the statistics indicate that there has been an increase in average global temperate over the past few decades (so I do believe global warming is a reality, regardless of its causes or implications), but I just get tired of hearing people screaming that the sky is falling every time we get a warm winter here in the north east.
A question I sometimes think of when pondering global warming.... Is it a bad thing? No one ever seems to ask that question, everyone just seems to assume that it is. It seems like more of the same status quo bias to me.
The real problem is our inadequate/ incomplete understanding of all of the ecological factors. If Milankovitch's theory is correct, then we are more or less at the end of an interglacial as it is, so pershaps it is a good thing that we are warming things up a bit. Unless of course we'd prefer to live in an ice age. [sfty] (Note: I don't necessarily believe this last statement. I was just using it to demonstrate how a range of arguments can be made because of the inadequate knowledge base we are working with.)
I made a mistake in not checking the temperature today before leaving home. Half way to the light rail I was carrying my coat in hand. It is freakishly warm today, I can't deny that, just as it was in DC when I went down there last month (I believe they shattered a few records in decemeber).
Is any of this statistically significant? eerrr, wrong question. Is it valid to use extremely limited personal observations to make empirical conclusions? I don't believe so.
I prefer to analyze the statistics. And yes, the statistics indicate that there has been an increase in average global temperate over the past few decades (so I do believe global warming is a reality, regardless of its causes or implications), but I just get tired of hearing people screaming that the sky is falling every time we get a warm winter here in the north east.
A question I sometimes think of when pondering global warming.... Is it a bad thing? No one ever seems to ask that question, everyone just seems to assume that it is. It seems like more of the same status quo bias to me.
The real problem is our inadequate/ incomplete understanding of all of the ecological factors. If Milankovitch's theory is correct, then we are more or less at the end of an interglacial as it is, so pershaps it is a good thing that we are warming things up a bit. Unless of course we'd prefer to live in an ice age. [sfty] (Note: I don't necessarily believe this last statement. I was just using it to demonstrate how a range of arguments can be made because of the inadequate knowledge base we are working with.)
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
