global warming

[timtimtimmy]

hey so u all have been hearing about global warming more and more lately and to tell u the troth it scares the hell out of me and I was wondering what u gies thought about it ................... Tim

[uni.rider.13]

One of my friends dad told me that in like 1923 or something around there scientists said that if we didn't do anything to change global warming then in twenty years the world would be gone or people would gone or something. But seeing as how twenty years from then would be 1943 and it is 2006, I think they are wrong. But yes the global warming thing does scare me. As does the thought that there might be a huge earthquake in Utah someday. Or that is what the scientists say anyways.

[harper]

Don't worry. The democrats control congress now so global warming has probably already stopped.

[rabbithunter018]

One of my friends dad told me that in like 1923 or something around there scientists said that if we didn't do anything to change global warming then in twenty years the world would be gone or people would gone or something. But seeing as how twenty years from then would be 1943 and it is 2006...
Very specific details. bravo.:rolleyes: :D ;)

[forrestunifreak]

One of my friends dad told me that in like 1923 or something around there scientists said that if we didn't do anything to change global warming then in twenty years the world would be gone or people would gone or something. But seeing as how twenty years from then would be 1943 and it is 2006, I think they are wrong.


Yep, it currently hasn't been as warm since about the 1930's. But in the 70's or so eviromentalists were yelling about gloabal cooling.

So figure out what the obvious conclusion is here. Warmest in the 30's, then cool in the 70's, then back up to warm again in the 2000's. Know what that's called? Fluctuation. If you don't know what that word means, go look it up.




Global warming (or rather, global warming as idiots like Al Gore preach it) is nonsense.

[john_childs]

It is easy to scare young folks. The geezers here can remember scares of nuclear war and nuclear winter. There were regular articles about how many times over the US and USSR could destroy the world (you would think being able to completely destroy the world once would be enough...). Later came theories of global cooling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling) and how the earth might be headed towards another ice age. There was even talk of nonsense like string theory. It all goes to show how little was understood yet was good enough for scare tactics.

[forrestunifreak]

It is easy to scare young folks. The geezers here can remember scares of nuclear war and nuclear winter. There were regular articles about how many times over the US and USSR could destroy the world (you would think being able to completely destroy the world once would be enough...). Later came theories of global cooling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling) and how the earth might be headed towards another ice age. There was even talk of nonsense like string theory. It all goes to show how little was understood yet was good enough for scare tactics.

How little is understood STILL. I'm sure people believed in global cooling then just as strongly as people believe in global warming now.

The earth will probablly start cooling down again in 20-30 years and then global cooling will be the new thing.

[habbywall]

hey so u all have been hearing about global warming more and more lately and to tell u the troth it scares the hell out of me and I was wondering what u gies thought about it ................... Tim

If it is so scary to you then get off your computer, destroy your car and go make up a sign about the bad things of global warning and stand on the side of the highway/stree with it all day.

[iridemymuni]

the earth is getting hotter cause the sun is getting hotter.

duh.

its been seen on other planets near us that they too are getting hotter, even with no human influence on them.

[Jim_Rob]

It's hard to know where to start in this erudite discussion. True, the climate should be entering into a cooling phase, based on our understanding of the glacial-interglacial timing. I don't remember "environmentalists" yelling about it and I've been involved in environmental study or research for more than 30 years. There is not much to holler about when it is part of geology.

As for whether Global Warming is real, even that functional idiot currently serving as our President agrees that it is. He's just not willing to do anything about it.

[Jerrick]

A lot of people say its just a simple fluctuation that has been occurring to our earth forever.

I believe them when they say that, cause I have seen the info and the research and a lot of info on the subject.

The thing is, our fluctuations are getting hotter and hotter, and have been increasing for many many years now.

Al Gore has a nice movie out about Global Warming. Its very good. I forgot the name of it, but you should find it out and go watch it.

[Goats_On_Unicycles]

Al Gore has a nice movie out about Global Warming. Its very good. I forgot the name of it, but you should find it out and go watch it.
The Inconvenient Truth

Havn't seen it yet but I'll see it soon. But yeah, All this crap we're pumping into the air isn't really good for the planet... The ocean is becoming more acidic, The air is dirty, Coral reefs are going away... It goes on and on..

[Jerrick]

The Inconvenient Truth

Havn't seen it yet but I'll see it soon. But yeah, All this crap we're pumping into the air isn't really good for the planet... The ocean is becoming more acidic, The air is dirty, Coral reefs are going away... It goes on and on..


What I didnt like seeing was the pictures of mountain ranges and Glaciers.

The earlier picture where beautiful with snow, and you could actually see the glaciers. The picture of more recent, there was no snow, and the glaciers have melted and in some cases disappeared.

I have seen this happen too. Not too long ago I made two trips, one trip to Glacier Park in Montana, and another trip to Mt. Rainier.

The trip is always held on the same dates, and have been going on for about 20 years now, so we have pictures of each year. I looked at the pictures from back then, then was standing in the exact location of where the picture taken, and it was plain. Melted away.

Also, in areas where the glaciers used to be, we had to hike up to about 7.5k feet to get as high as the Glacier are. They keep melting and retreating higher up the mountain. The hike was still amazing.

Also, the carbondioxide count in our air is pretty daunting.

[yoopers]

.

[yoopers]

..

[john_childs]

How little is understood STILL. I'm sure people believed in global cooling then just as strongly as people believe in global warming now.

The earth will probablly start cooling down again in 20-30 years and then global cooling will be the new thing.
My comment was a bit tongue in cheek. Hence the slap at string theory.

Despite my comments, I don't not believe in global warming. But I'm also not in a panic about it. It's a complicated situation with many variables and effects and influences. It is not something that you can understand with only a high school education, by watching an Al Gore movie, or by staying at a Holiday Inn Express.

Global warming is also a cause du jour. One way to filter out those who believe in global warming because it is hip and those who really believe it will lead to global catastrophe is to ask them if they would support broad use of nuclear power to replace our dependence on oil, gas, and coal for generating electricity. If they won't support nuclear power as an alternative then they don't really believe global warming will be the catastrophe they claim it will be. ;)

Plug-in hybrids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plug-in_hybrid_electric_vehicle) are one way to reduce emissions. But to be most effective you need the electricity to come from sources that don't generate greenhouse gases. The only practical way to do that is to rely on nuclear power with green sources like wind power and solar to back it up. But most is going to have to come from nuclear. Trucks (tractor trailer rigs) would also need to clean up their emissions cause they're a good chunk of vehicle emissions.

But even with that, the available coal, oil, and gas is going to get used. Either by us, Europe, China, or Asia. It's all eventually going to get burned and the carbon released into the atmosphere. So gotta figure a way to deal with that eventuality. Cleaning up our act in the US won't necessarily address the problem if other countries just burn the fuel we didn't.

[Spudman]

"Here it comes! Gobal Warming!!! AHH!!! RUN!!"


....


"It's coming from over there now! Ahhhh!! Quick, run the other way!!"

[tobbogonist]

Well Tasmania has yet to see the global warming effect with it snowing last week right down to the waters edge (something that does not happen even in winter) in summer.
I have not done much research into it myself because with school work i havnt got a chance. I think the theory behind the movie the day after tommorow Holds some ground.

[toddw9]

Trucks (tractor trailer rigs) would also need to clean up their emissions cause they're a good chunk of vehicle emissions.

There are new laws within the last couple months in Canada and the US that are designed for exactly that. They are required to use a higher grade of diesel that has a much lower sulphur content, and burns cleaner. Unfortunately for truckers, it's also considerably more expensive.

Motors are also being built to higher standards.

[Jim_Rob]

One way to filter out those who believe in global warming because it is hip and those who really believe it will lead to global catastrophe is to ask them if they would support broad use of nuclear power to replace our dependence on oil, gas, and coal for generating electricity. If they won't support nuclear power as an alternative then they don't really believe global warming will be the catastrophe they claim it will be. ;)

Nuclear Power may help in the short term (30-40 years) but is not a sustainable solution. Uranium-based light water reactors (by far the most common technology) rely on cheap and plentiful uranium, which we will quickly run out of if we develop this resource to replace a significant amount of carbon-based generation. The alternative is to use plutonium breader reactors, with the associated weapons problems. With either technology, you also have a huge disposal problem, which remains an externality* even in today's market, and would be many times worse in an expanded market.

* A signifcant cost not captured by the market

[iridemymuni]

a coal power-plant gives off more nuclear radiation into the atmosphere and it's surroundings than a nuclear power plant.

keep that in mind.

[Jim_Rob]

I think the theory behind the movie the day after tommorow Holds some ground.

The movie The Day After Tomorrow is crap. The theory behind it, a shut down in the North Atlantic Circulation, may have some validity. But this would happen on a much longer time scale (decades), so the events depcited in the movie are laughable.

Disclaimer- I haven't seen the movie, so I'm basing my statements on secondary sources.

[BluntRM]

a coal power-plant gives off more nuclear radiation into the atmosphere and it's surroundings than a nuclear power plant.

keep that in mind.

Source it, but the problem will still remain: What can be done with a spent nuclear fuel rod?

[BluntRM]

Why not go Luddite? I mean we've devolved/evolved transportion into a single wheel...:D

[iridemymuni]

Source it, but the problem will still remain: What can be done with a spent nuclear fuel rod?


see this is how it works.

in a nuclear power plant, the only thing it gives off is heat, and nuclear waste. the nuclear waste is always controlled and never allowed to reach the "outside world", it is then dumped into big "bunkers" deep underground where the radiation cannot escape.

in a coal power plant, it uses coal, right? and the coal is not 100% pure coal, it will have some impurities, one of these being radioactive material. Even if the concentration of radioactive material is only 0.001%, the millions and millions of tonnes used adds up to a substantial amount of radioactive material which is released into the atmosphere/environment.

the spent fuel rods go deeeeeeeeeeep underground and stored so that the radiation could never escape. personally i wouldnt mind if they had the bunker in my back yard, it's pretty safe.

[john_childs]

Nuclear Power may help in the short term (30-40 years) but is not a sustainable solution. Uranium-based light water reactors (by far the most common technology) rely on cheap and plentiful uranium, which we will quickly run out of if we develop this resource to replace a significant amount of carbon-based generation. The alternative is to use plutonium breader reactors, with the associated weapons problems. With either technology, you also have a huge disposal problem, which remains an externality* even in today's market, and would be many times worse in an expanded market.

* A signifcant cost not captured by the market
There are other types of nuclear reactors besides the common pressurized water reactors and similar reactors. The other types of reactors use different types of fuel. No need to worry about running out of fuel in the near term. Just need to continue research and development on different types of reactors. And also continue research on fusion and other sources of energy. You only need to sustain long enough till the next generation of power generation becomes viable.

I don't see how it will be possible to have any significant and sustainable reduction in CO2 emissions without going nuclear. Electric and plug-in hybrid cars will also be necessary, but will need clean (non CO2 producing) electric power to make a maximum impact.

I don't see a realistic way around that. If you want to make actual reductions in CO2 emissions you need to support nuclear power. That leaves the environmentalists with a choice between two evils. Which evil is worse? To me the answer is very clear.

Going Nuclear (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html)
Patrick Moore endorses nuclear energy before US Congress (http://www.greenspirit.com/logbook.cfm?msid=70)

[harper]

Which evil is worse? To me the answer is very NUclear.



There. Fixed it.

[thefish]

I myself don't believe too much in global warming, but if the prospect of it scares people into helping the environment, then I wont say anything.
On the matter of nuclear power, nuclear fission (i think) is the process that creates waste. Nuclear fusion, on the other hand, creates (to my knowledge) almost no waste at all and is much more powerful than fission. The only problem is being able to create a reaction and sustain it.
On the matter of resources, even if we don't have infinite resources, we have the resources we need right here in the United States. That means we don't have to rely on countries that have a large population that wants us dead for fuel.
Then again, I'm no expert on these things. Please feel free to point out any flaws in my argument.

[mscalisi]

You know...I've never quite understood the anti-environmentalism movement.

We all live on this planet, doesn't everyone here have a vested interest in what happens to it? It also seems like this has turned into do a republican vs. democrat thing?

So maybe we're causing global-warming, and maybe we're not. I think there's sufficient evidence for us to be concerned and look into it further. Can people seriously think that with all of the stuff we're doing to our planet that we have no effect?

[skianduniaddict]

Yep, it currently hasn't been as warm since about the 1930's. But in the 70's or so eviromentalists were yelling about gloabal cooling.

So figure out what the obvious conclusion is here. Warmest in the 30's, then cool in the 70's, then back up to warm again in the 2000's. Know what that's called? Fluctuation. If you don't know what that word means, go look it up.




Global warming (or rather, global warming as idiots like Al Gore preach it) is nonsense.
whats fluctuation




















































just kidding its when stuff varays and changes

[timtimtimmy]

Wheal my stand point is that the world is in dire need of some major help they say that in 40 years there inset going to be a fish left in the water IN 40 YEARS no im young but I no that 40 years ant that long and we decently need a new solution fore transpiration I daunt no how match carbon is being pumped in to the atmosphere but it will probly scare apron I thick what needs to be dun is that we should use the energy from the wind from turbines to make our energy and then convert it in to hydrogen to run our cars and things like that Ide be more construable doing that then having 1000s of nuclear plants everywhere over the globe …………………… tim

[Jim_Rob]

On the matter of nuclear power,.........we have the resources we need right here in the United States.

And it's all located under the Slick Rock Trail, NOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Let me be clear; nuclear can help, but it won't be the magic fix that some people make it out to be (I wonder if they own Westinghouse stock?) Fusion technology is about 30 years from being viable, and has been for 50 years.

And we will still have the waste problem, hugely compounded if we start using Plutonium breeder technology.

[john_childs]

You know...I've never quite understood the anti-environmentalism movement.
There is no significant anti-environmentalism movement.
Just because someone doesn't follow Greenpeace's views or the Sierra Club's views doesn't mean they are against the environment.

Lots of people are for responsible use and management of natural resources. But that view gets painted as anti-environmentalist. That's not a fair label. Responsible management means keeping the environment sustainable. Lots of people are for that.

But the environmentalism movement wants hands off and to them responsible management is abuse.

Save the anti-environmentalist label for those who truly are.

[monkeyman]

You know...I've never quite understood the anti-environmentalism movement.

I'm against global warming for two reasons:
1. It doesn't exist.
2. It takes focus away from real environmental problems.

I'm all for taking care of the environment, but running in the streets screaming about the Global Warming Apocalypse makes it much harder for real issues to be dealt with.

[forrestunifreak]

I'm against global warming for two reasons:
1. It doesn't exist.
2. It takes focus away from real environmental problems.

I'm all for taking care of the environment, but running in the streets screaming about the Global Warming Apocalypse makes it much harder for real issues to be dealt with.

My view exactly. Sure, I admit the earth might be going through a warm spell. But like I think I already said (sorry if I'm repeating) in several years or so it'll most likely start cooling off again.

Also, "global warming" isn't really "global". Didn't Siberia/ Rushia have an unusually extreme cold winter last year? And South Africa had an unusually long snow, with snowstorms in places that didn’t normally get snow. Even here in Montana, it got down to -15 F middle of october. Which is pretty cold for so early in the fall. Call that 'global' warming?

Or the earth might explode in exactly 10 years and kill us all!!!! According to Al Gore.:rolleyes:

[monkeyman]

I think God is up there with a nice little dial, and he just turns that ever so slightly, just to mess with us. Then, he sits back and laughs as humanity goes crazy.

[timtimtimmy]

I think God is up there with a nice little dial, and he just turns that ever so slightly, just to mess with us. Then, he sits back and laughs as humanity goes crazy.
HAHAHAHAH

[Borges]

I'm against global warming for two reasons:
1. It doesn't exist.
2. It takes focus away from real environmental problems.
By "doesn't exist" you mean it's not man-made, right?
Because if you're saying average global temperature hasn't been rising lately, you're slightly out of sync with the measurements.

I'm all for taking care of the environment, but running in the streets screaming about the Global Warming Apocalypse makes it much harder for real issues to be dealt with.
That's too bad because my favorite solution is to cut down the rainforrest, burry the timber to prevent it from rotting, and let new trees grow and capture carbon from the air. Sometimes that suggestion can get you a :eek: before they realize you're joking :).

[yoopers]

I think God is up there with a nice little dial, and he just turns that ever so slightly, just to mess with us. Then, he sits back and laughs as humanity goes crazy.
I've toured the local nuclear power plant several times. They have a fake control room for training. This sounds exactly like the trainer. He'll say, "Watch this." Then turn a dial to create a problem and watch the trainees go crazy. It's pretty fun to watch.

They tell me there that life in a nuclear power station control room can be described as hours upon hours of sheer boredom punctuated by moments of sheer terror.

[monkeyman]

By "doesn't exist" you mean it's not man-made, right?
er...yeah. hehe.


That's too bad because my favorite solution is to cut down the rainforrest, burry the timber to prevent it from rotting, and let new trees grow and capture carbon from the air.

Hey, that would totally work! I'm moving to Tennessee and running for Governor.

I've toured the local nuclear power plant several times. They have a fake control room for training. This sounds exactly like the trainer. He'll say, "Watch this." Then turn a dial to create a problem and watch the trainees go crazy. It's pretty fun to watch.

[Jim_Rob]

Hey, that's me! That's just what I look like!

[ivan]

Source it, but the problem will still remain: What can be done with a spent nuclear fuel rod?
Can't we put it to good use by placing it in the Simpsons opening sequence?

[ivan]

see this is how it works.

in a nuclear power plant, the only thing it gives off is heat, and nuclear waste. the nuclear waste is always controlled and never allowed to reach the "outside world", it is then dumped into big "bunkers" deep underground where the radiation cannot escape.

in a coal power plant, it uses coal, right? and the coal is not 100% pure coal, it will have some impurities, one of these being radioactive material. Even if the concentration of radioactive material is only 0.001%, the millions and millions of tonnes used adds up to a substantial amount of radioactive material which is released into the atmosphere/environment.

the spent fuel rods go deeeeeeeeeeep underground and stored so that the radiation could never escape. personally i wouldnt mind if they had the bunker in my back yard, it's pretty safe.
That's in theory, but in practice they just dump it in the Irish Sea in containers that are supposed to last for centuries and which start leaking after a few years. Nothing ever goes the way it's supposed to.

[ivan]

They tell me there that life in a nuclear power station control room can be described as hours upon hours of sheer boredom punctuated by moments of sheer terror.
I'm very much inclined to believe that after watching almost all of the Simpsons episodes. Homer is always sleeping at work: boredom. But sometimes the boss comes with an inspection or Homer spills his soup on the control panel: terror.

[pkplonker]

unicycles wont be affected so why worry?!?!

[monkeyman]

unicycles wont be affected so why worry?!?!

It's good to know that if global warming causes chaos throughout the world, and destroys all life on the planet, our unicycles will still be ok.

[johnfoss]

I'm against global warming for two reasons:
1. It doesn't exist.
2. It takes focus away from real environmental problems.
If I had to pick my experts between you and Al Gore, I'm afraid Gore seems to have the better numbers. Have you seen his film? I thought it was very well done. Check it out with an open mind (he's not like Michael Moore or anything) and see if you learn anything new.

According to what I remember from the film, the current numbers are not just rising, they are spiking way beyond any known trend of temperature fluxuations known to science. And the spike is still curving upward. If someone has numbers to suggest otherwise, I'm curious to hear about them, and their source.

[JusticeZero]

Well, the bright thing about global warming projections is that they're based on existing carbon emissions. We're on the verge of hitting the peak oil crisis when oil prices start curving drastically upwards due to the exhaustion of the economically-recoverable deposits faster than the lag time to get alternative energies on the market. We -can't- keep producing carbon emissions at the current rate because we're about to run out of fuel to do it with.

Mind you, that may not be comforting.

[timtimtimmy]

Well, the bright thing about global warming projections is that they're based on existing carbon emissions. We're on the verge of hitting the peak oil crisis when oil prices start curving drastically upwards due to the exhaustion of the economically-recoverable deposits faster than the lag time to get alternative energies on the market. We -can't- keep producing carbon emissions at the current rate because we're about to run out of fuel to do it with.

Mind you, that may not be comforting.
Yes! so that means the bureaucrats have to stop dragging there ass and do southing like pot money in to wind turbines and hydrogen card s or we are going to be back in the caves like 1000s years ago o and it will be hotter lol

[mscalisi]

If I had to pick my experts between you and Al Gore, I'm afraid Gore seems to have the better numbers. Have you seen his film? I thought it was very well done. Check it out with an open mind (he's not like Michael Moore or anything) and see if you learn anything new.

According to what I remember from the film, the current numbers are not just rising, they are spiking way beyond any known trend of temperature fluxuations known to science. And the spike is still curving upward. If someone has numbers to suggest otherwise, I'm curious to hear about them, and their source.

According to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Greenhouse_gases_in_the_atmosphere

about 75% of scientists think global warming has to do with human activity.

I don't understand what makes people think that we cannot affect our environment with all the stuff our machines spit out.

...and what if humans are NOT the cause of global warming. ...are we sure....really really sure....absolutely unconditionally positive??!! I think we should err on the side of safety when talking about something with such high consequences.

[headstone]

My view exactly. Sure, I admit the earth might be going through a warm spell. But like I think I already said (sorry if I'm repeating) in several years or so it'll most likely start cooling off again.

Also, "global warming" isn't really "global". Didn't Siberia/ Rushia have an unusually extreme cold winter last year? And South Africa had an unusually long snow, with snowstorms in places that didn’t normally get snow. Even here in Montana, it got down to -15 F middle of october. Which is pretty cold for so early in the fall. Call that 'global' warming?

Or the earth might explode in exactly 10 years and kill us all!!!! According to Al Gore.

Short term cold spells in certain areas have nothing to do with global climate change.

There's a lot of denial happening here, but it doesn't matter because none of us have enough power to do anything about it anyway.

[Borges]

... it doesn't matter because none of us have enough power to do anything about it anyway.
We have to live with being just one out of billions of people, but you can always do what's in your power.

[Naomi]

Yes! so that means the bureaucrats have to stop dragging there ass and do southing like pot money in to wind turbines and hydrogen card s or we are going to be back in the caves like 1000s years ago o and it will be hotter lol


Best get started building some more caves.

Nao

[Jim_Rob]

According to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Greenhouse_gases_in_the_atmosphere

about 75% of scientists think global warming has to do with human activity.

In my experience that number is way low, it's more like 99+%. Like I said, even our village/national idiot believes global warming is caused by humans, he (or more properly his manipulators) just isn't going to do anything substantive about it.

[thejdw]

How little is understood STILL. I'm sure people believed in global cooling then just as strongly as people believe in global warming now.

The earth will probablly start cooling down again in 20-30 years and then global cooling will be the new thing.
I think they will cancell each other out with the word getting hot and cold at the same time the result should be the earth being warm.:D
Also I heard somthing about the sun going through a cool stage has anyone got any more info on this?

[thejdw]

It's good to know that if global warming causes chaos throughout the world, and destroys all life on the planet, our unicycles will still be ok.
Yes we shall all go to a planet rserved for unicyclists:p

[Jethro]

In my experience that number is way low, it's more like 99+%. Like I said, even our village/national idiot believes global warming is caused by humans, he (or more properly his manipulators) just isn't going to do anything substantive about it.

But Rush Limbaugh says it is due to methane gas produced by cattle, and if anyone should know a thing or two about cow farts, it is Rush Limbaugh.

[forrestunifreak]

If I had to pick my experts between you and Al Gore, I'm afraid Gore seems to have the better numbers. .


If Al Gore told me the sky was blue, I would have doubts...

[yoopers]

But Rush Limbaugh says it is due to methane gas produced by cattle, and if anyone should know a thing or two about cow farts, it is Rush Limbaugh.
Okay, Billy-Bob. You've forced me to do it. I must revive the story about my proposed senior engineering design project in college. It was right along these lines.

I wanted to determine a factor for the bovine methane gas emmision contribution to the enviroment as a base for further research on global warming. My design would be an air sampling device to hang on the back end of a cow that would take periodic air samples for analysis. I was going to call the device my Flatulated Air Recovery Terminal or F.A.R.T.

[Jethro]

^hilarious!

So what did you find out?

[monkeyman]

Cows are smelly.

[Jim_Rob]

Okay, Billy-Bob. You've forced me to do it. I must revive the story about my proposed senior engineering design project in college. It was right along these lines.

I wanted to determine a factor for the bovine methane gas emmision contribution to the enviroment as a base for further research on global warming. My design would be an air sampling device to hang on the back end of a cow that would take periodic air samples for analysis. I was going to call the device my Flatulated Air Recovery Terminal or F.A.R.T.

Been done. It turns out it's not the farts, it's the belches that contribute the most methane. The research was done by the placement of sampling ports at various points along the cow's digestive tract. I can steer you towards the primary literature on the subject if you are interested.

[johnfoss]

If Al Gore told me the sky was blue, I would have doubts...
What if he showed you, and also gave a plausible explanation of why it was that color? You could choose not to believe the explanation, but what about what your eyes were telling you?

I would also believe whatever you told/showed me, if you had the majority of the world's scientists to back you up. Even if you're a hardcore Republican.

[wobblyjohn]

That reminds me, I've always heard some hand-waving explanation about refractory randomness and so forth. I've also seen liquid oxygen, and it's exactly the same color as the sky it comprises some 21% of.... Seems a much likelier explanation that the sky is blue simply because it *is* blue! I can dispute the usual theoretical cause without lifting a finger. Challenging independently verifiable results, such as the color of the sky, would require a revolutionary insight into some aspect we've overlooked (such as mass hallucination), and an independently verifiable method to demonstrate those findings.

I do think Al's doing a decent job. It's taken over half a century of frantic work to even get this topic up for public discussion. Carl Sagan published examples in the 70's that put Al Gore's to shame. It was generally ignored as the "greenhouse effect" for a couple of decades. At least it's finally made it into the lofty realm of unqualified consumer opinion. Scientists generally don't have the resources or aptitudes to delve into social advocacy, so it's often up to concerned non scientists like Al Gore to get the word out.

[Jim_Rob]

That reminds me, I've always heard some hand-waving explanation about refractory randomness and so forth. I've also seen liquid oxygen, and it's exactly the same color as the sky it comprises some 21% of.... Seems a much likelier explanation that the sky is blue simply because it *is* blue! I can dispute the usual theoretical cause without lifting a finger. Challenging independently verifiable results, such as the color of the sky, would require a revolutionary insight into some aspect we've overlooked (such as mass hallucination), and an independently verifiable method to demonstrate those findings.
The sky is blue because of the wavelength dependence of light scattering, it goes as 1/wavelength^4. So the shorter wavelengths (bluer light) are scattered much more efficiently than the longer (redder) wavelengths. So one would then predict that under conditions where the pathlength through the atmosphere was longer, the sun woud appear to be redder, and low and behold, that is why sunsets are orange and red.

Scientists generally don't have the resources or aptitudes to delve into social advocacy, so it's often up to concerned non scientists like Al Gore to get the word out.
It's actually more deliberate than this. When we scientists delve into social advocacy, we lose credibility because we are no longer perceived as objective and un-biased. I talk about Climate Change only because my field is urban/regional air pollution and I happen to know a lot about the atmosphere. My paycheck doesn't depend on "selling" global warming one way or another.

[forrestunifreak]

From www.newsmax.com (sorry I don't have a direct link, we just get this as an email newsletter)

New Report Refutes Global Warming
A recent report from Britain's Sir Nicholas Stern warned of the devastating economic effects global warming could have on the world in coming years.

But a British researcher has added his voice to those saying the "hysteria" over manmade global warming distorts the truth.

Stern — former chief economist at the World Bank — cautioned that if greenhouse gas emissions weren't significantly reduced, by 2050 the global economy would shrink by up to 20 percent, millions of people would be permanently displaced and droughts would plague the earth.

Now journalist Christopher Monckton, who was a policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher, has published a detailed report attacking the manmade global warming theory from various angles — including the so-called "medieval warm period."

The United Nations, which has issued a widely quoted report on global warming, "abolished the medieval warm period — the global warming at the end of the First Millennium A.D.," according to Monckton.

A U.N. report in 1996 "showed a 1,000-year graph demonstrating that temperature in the Middle Ages was warmer than today," Monckton writes in Britain's Sunday Telegraph.

"But the 2001 report contained a new graph showing no medieval warm period. It wrongly concluded that the 20th century was the warmest for 1,000 years . . .

"Scores of scientific papers show that the medieval warm period was real, global and up to [5 degrees Fahrenheit] warmer than now.

"Then, there were no glaciers in the tropical Andes; today they're there. There were Viking farms in Greenland; now they're under permafrost. There was little ice at the North Pole — a Chinese naval squadron sailed right around the Arctic in 1421 and found none."

Monckton also writes that Antarctica has cooled and gained ice-mass in the past 30 years, and the oceans have cooled sharply in the past two years.

He calculates that global temperatures will rise only .18 to 2.5 degrees in the coming century, "well within the medieval temperature range."

And he suggests that rather than point to greenhouse gases as the culprit behind any measurable global warming, we might blame the sun. He cites a scientist who maintains that in the past half-century the sun has been warmer, for longer, than at any time in at least the past 11,400 years.

Monckton's conclusion: "Politicians, scientists and bureaucrats contrived a threat of Biblical floods, droughts, plagues, and extinctions worthier of St. John the Divine than of science."

He also remarks: "Al Gore please note."





What if he showed you, and also gave a plausible explanation of why it was that color? You could choose not to believe the explanation, but what about what your eyes were telling you?


I should have used some sarcastic smilies. :) :rolleyes:

[skate4flip]

I suggest reading the book State of Fear by Michael Crighton.

[Jim_Rob]

The Monckton Report is crap, he just made stuff up.

I suggest reading the book State of Fear by Michael Crighton.

If I had time to read fiction, I wouldn't start in the middle of the pile.

[mawesome]

If I had time to read fiction, I wouldn't start in the middle of the pile.

I don't know what that means, but I'm pretty sure somebody just got served.

[johnfoss]

"Then, there were no glaciers in the tropical Andes; today they're there. There were Viking farms in Greenland; now they're under permafrost. There was little ice at the North Pole — a Chinese naval squadron sailed right around the Arctic in 1421 and found none."
Kudos for digging up some research!

Still, the above suggests that glaciers are melting all over the place, and overwhelming evidence confirms it. If a lot melts, it raises sea levels. The simplest form of economic havoc this could create is the loss of some of the world's most expensive real estate (coastline properties).

The prediction of .18 to 2.5 total temperature increase over the next 100 years totally clashes with the upward curves in most of the stuff I've seen. According to An Inconvenient Truth, the curve is still supposed to be going up (that means the *rate* of temperature increase). Hmmm.

Part of my point is that it doesn't matter whether it's a man-caused problem or not. If glaciers and ice caps keep melting, the problems will be the same regardless of the source. The only difference is how to combat the problem, if we can. Certainly we can work to reduce greenhouse emissions, which has its costs but is probably a good idea in general.

[ThisGuyIKnow]

Kudos for digging up some research!


Too bad that quoting Newsmax is hardly doing research.

Newsmax makes Foxnews look liberal.

Quoting Newsmax is a big red flag that says, "This person has no idea what they are actually talking about"

[john_childs]

Too bad that quoting Newsmax is hardly doing research.

Newsmax makes Foxnews look liberal.

Quoting Newsmax is a big red flag that says, "This person has no idea what they are actually talking about"
Well then I'll be sure to discount everything I see from the Liberal blogs discounting the Monckton report in the Telegraph. That'll make it easy to figure out what's going on. NewsMax is just reporting about stuff that's already been reported elsewhere.

How about actually looking for the source (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=&ie=UTF-8&q=Monckton+global+warming&btnG=Search+News). The original report is published in the Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml). I'll be sure to discount all the articles critical of the report based on their source.

It is easy to see the Monckton report in the Telegraph for what it is if you just bother to look. But I can't go there because those sources are biased.

[BluntRM]

Translator: We smashed locusts and made bread.

........................................................................ ...............

Tommy Corn: I have no idea what you guys are talking about. I thought we were here to talk about petroleum.

[Jim_Rob]

It is easy to see the Monckton report in the Telegraph for what it is if you just bother to look.

Done it, downloaded the pdf of his report, pulled the 1996 IPCC report off my bookshelf. Can't find the figure purporting to show the "Medieval Warm Period". Conclusion (see above); Monckton is making stuff up. Yeah primary literature! Strictly speaking the IPCC report is a summary of the primary literature, but it has many of the same features, i.e. peer review.

[Jim_Rob]

Also, this business of calculating a lower climate sensitivity (hence much lower predicted temperature rise) using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. That's easy. The Stefan-Boltzmann Law applies to a black body at equilibrium (e.g. uniform temperature). The earth is not a pure black body, it has an atmosphere, containing greenhouse gases. Also, it is not strictly in equilibrium due to the slow rate of heat transfer to the oceans. DOH!

[BluntRM]

Is anyone viewing this thread using solar power, driving hybrids, or otherwise consuming in a drastically cleaner way because of these concerns?

[BluntRM]

Mr. Electricity (http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/)

[Jim_Rob]

Is anyone viewing this thread using solar power, driving hybrids, or otherwise consuming in a drastically cleaner way because of these concerns?
Yes

[BluntRM]

Yes

Good stuff. What's your energy saver?

[Jim_Rob]

Wind power. Pedal power.

[BluntRM]

Wind power. Pedal power.

Have you noticed any ill-effects from the wind power? Birds, etc.?

[Jim_Rob]

It all happens up in Wyoming, our electric utility has a program that allows people to buy shares of wind power. My impression is that the large turbines are safe for small continental birds, it' s the larger shore birds that have problems.

[skate4flip]

The Monckton Report is crap, he just made stuff up.



If I had time to read fiction, I wouldn't start in the middle of the pile.
It is a fiction book (its still a great read) but there are many facts/charts/graphs throughout that are pretty interesting.

[john_childs]

Done it, downloaded the pdf of his report, pulled the 1996 IPCC report off my bookshelf. Can't find the figure purporting to show the "Medieval Warm Period". Conclusion (see above); Monckton is making stuff up. Yeah primary literature! Strictly speaking the IPCC report is a summary of the primary literature, but it has many of the same features, i.e. peer review.
Yes, the newspaper article has the authority of a high school or undergrad science report. It does have nice pretty graphs.

It's easy to find what the newspaper article is just by reading analysis and criticism of it. It's not something that would stand up as proof of anything to counter global warming theories. Just more straw men to blow down.

[john_childs]

Is anyone viewing this thread using solar power, driving hybrids, or otherwise consuming in a drastically cleaner way because of these concerns?
How clean is your electricity (http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/powpro/screen1.html)? (deep link)

EPA Clean Energy (http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energynyou.htm) more general link

[BluntRM]

How clean is your electricity (http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/powpro/screen1.html)? (deep link)

EPA Clean Energy (http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energynyou.htm) more general link

Twice the nat'l average for nuke power... great link. Thanks.

[john_childs]

Twice the nat'l average for nuke power... great link. Thanks.
Even a conservative can keep links like that around. :D

The Pacific NW does well on that scale because of our hydro use. But hydro is also seasonal and not friendly to the fishes. It's not a source that is going to expand (quite the opposite). So we're going to need to replace that with something else as our energy needs grow and the hydro gets phased out. Care to place any bets on whether the replacement sources will be as greenhouse friendly?

The Seattle area currently gets 2% from non-hydro renewable, 54% from hydro, 7% from nuclear, 13% from gas, and 23% from coal.

We need more nukes. If this global warming threat gets us anything it should get us more nukes.

[Jim_Rob]

We need more nukes. If this global warming threat gets us anything it should get us more nukes.
Maybe you could put a couple of barrels of nuclear waste in your basement, that will keep you warm.

[john_childs]

Maybe you could put a couple of barrels of nuclear waste in your basement, that will keep you warm.
Or we could not build nukes and use coal instead. That'll warm us up if you want to believe the global warming theorists.

Pick your poison.

[Jim_Rob]

Pick your poison.
Guinness! Actually Bridgeport makes a better stout, but that's another thread.

We will need a fairly broad range of energy technologies to solve this problem, in addition to vision and leadership - OOPS - that's another thread too.

[john_childs]

GM is doing work on a plug-in hybrid SUV (http://www.autoblog.com/2006/11/29/la-auto-show-rick-wagoner-announces-development-of-plug-in-hybr/). We'll have to see what comes of it. Is the SUV form factor so it can carry lots of batteries and still have cargo space?

[johnfoss]

Is the SUV form factor so it can carry lots of batteries and still have cargo space?
I can answer that without knowing a damn thing about this particular vehicle: It's an SUV because that's what Americans think they want to drive. The fact that SUVs are wasteful, expensive fuel hogs does not seem as important as the way one looks, or the perceived ability to drive off-road even though you never do. Why else would BMW and Porsche make SUVs?

[onewheelinwierdo]

There is no such thing as global warming! Chuck Norris was cold so he turned up the sun! LOL:D

[pkplonker]

The world has been heating up since the last ice age.....so basically it is inevitable.


Or so my theroy goes...:p

[monkeyman]

I can answer that without knowing a damn thing about this particular vehicle: It's an SUV because that's what Americans think they want to drive. The fact that SUVs are wasteful, expensive fuel hogs does not seem as important as the way one looks, or the perceived ability to drive off-road even though you never do. Why else would BMW and Porsche make SUVs?

The ability to go mudding while watching DVDs and sitting in leather seats is important to some people.

[headstone]

and the ability to look like a stupid stay at home soccer mom

[JusticeZero]

It's an SUV because that's what Americans think they want to drive.
Actually, I can answer this.

In the United States, there are laws on fuel efficiency and on how fuel efficient cars have to be. These laws are not based on how heavy the car is or what the purpose of the car is, they are based on whether the vehicle is a car or a truck. The important figure here is the average efficiency of the cars an auto maker sells, and if that average gets above the respective lines, they are subject to penalties and hassles.

There is a different and much more strict standard for cars. When an auto maker makes a large car, the realities of physics conspire to pull their average fuel efficiency for all cars they manufacture down depending on the popularity of the vehicle.

Remember station wagons? You know, seats seven, room in back for groceries? Have you seen any in awhile? I haven't. They're big. They need a strong frame to handle the extra size. That means adding weight. That means it needs a larger engine, which means it won't have a lot of fuel efficiency. That means that an auto maker will be penalized if they make very many of them.

Do you think the DEMAND for a 7-seat, room in back vehicle has gone away? Certainly there are plenty from families who sometimes need to throw everyone in the car to go somewhere.

Hmm, how do we dolve this.. Hey, look! If we take the old station wagon and put it on a TRUCK chassis, we can fit it in the TRUCK fuel efficiency laws with no trouble! Of course we can't call it a "station wagon" any more. Instead we'll call it a "Sport Utility Vehicle" or SUV for short, thus freeing us of the need to try to convince vast numbers of people of the wonders of a tiny subcompact, most of the adherents of which already own one.

In short, if it weren't for the wording of the fuel efficiency standard laws of the U.S., you wouldn't be seeing SUV's, you'd be seeing family station wagons, because an SUV is just a station wagon on a truck frame to dodge fuel efficiency penalties.

[johnfoss]

In short, if it weren't for the wording of the fuel efficiency standard laws of the U.S., you wouldn't be seeing SUV's, you'd be seeing family station wagons, because an SUV is just a station wagon on a truck frame to dodge fuel efficiency penalties.
You're right about the lower fuel economy requirements for trucks vs. cars. Buy Americans still *think* they want SUVs. It's called marketing. If they wanted station wagons they'd say so. Has anyone really wanted a (full sized) station wagon since other options became available? I drive a minivan myself, but I'm growing out of it. It's not counted as a truck either.

There is pressure from Consumers Union and many other organizations to get the fuel efficiency standards raised, or at least made more sensible. The automakers continue to claim they can't do it, which we know isn't true. The best solution is probably higher gas prices...

[JusticeZero]

Well, on the flip side, there is a correlation between fuel efficiency standards and deaths. It is estimated that the current fuel economy laws kill quite a few people each year on account of reduced crashworthiness, as a portion of the road death toll in the U.S. (42,643 auto deaths in 2003 Source: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ )

I don't know that anyone "wants a station wagon", rather, they want the features of a station wagon. Today, the features of a station wagon are called an SUV.

If an SUV is being used to carry a family around, it is producing less emissions per person than a subcompact. I'd rather see one SUV on the road than 2-3 subcompacts.

I can't see demonizing SUV's *on the basis that they are SUV's*. You'll need something a bit more concrete.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to get back to work on trying to get bus and train systems to be more viable. :D

[yoopers]

Global warming at it's finest!!!!




.

[forrestunifreak]

From cnsnews.com:

UN Report Pours 'Cold Water' on Global Warming, Senator Says
By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
December 12, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - A United Nations study due for release early next year will reportedly lower estimates of mankind's impact on the earth's climate by 25 percent, a development a leading climate change skeptic in the U.S. Senate says will pour "cold water" on "global warming alarmism."

"We are all skeptics now," Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the U.S. Senate Environment & Public Works Committee, said in response to media leaks on a report by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is set to be published next February.

London's Telegraph reported Sunday (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/10/nclimate10.xml) that the IPCC draft report reduces its overall estimate of the human impact on global warming by one-fourth, and halves its predictions for rises in sea-level by 2100.

The IPCC's new figures are attributed to "a refinement due to better data on how climate works."

The panel's report "says that the overall human effect on global warming since the industrial revolution is less than had been thought, due to the unexpected levels of cooling caused by aerosol sprays, which reflect heat from the sun," the paper said.

Furthermore, "large amounts of heat have been absorbed by the oceans, masking the warming effect."

Copies of the document, which was sent by the IPCC to climate experts and participating governments on Oct. 28, were obtained by several news organizations in Britain.

"Climate science is always going through these 'refinements,'" Inhofe said in a statement. "The media has alternated between four separate global cooling and warming scares since 1895," including "the erroneous prediction (http://www.cnsnews.com/Nation/Archive/200610/NAT20061026a.html) of a coming ice age in the 1970s," he said.

"Each climate scare eventually faded away due to similar 'refinements due to better data,'" Inhofe said.

That global warming alarmism was "more hype than fact" should not surprise those who have heard the more than 10 speeches on climate change Inhofe has given, the senator said.

"Even the U.N. appears to now be sobering up and dousing much-needed cold water on the global warming alarmism promoted by much of the mainstream media, Hollywood, NASA scientist James Hansen and former Vice President Al Gore," Inhofe added.

"Eventually, even the peddlers of climate alarmism will have to concede that the hoopla over man-made catastrophic global warming and the proposed solutions like the costly and ineffective Kyoto Protocol will prove to be one of the history's most misguided concerns."

However, despite the IPCC's reported reassessment, according to the Sunday Telegraph, the U.N. body maintains that "there can be little doubt that humans are responsible for warming the planet."

It said the IPCC report also "warns that carbon dioxide emissions have risen during the past five years by three percent, well above the 0.4 percent a year average of the previous two decades."

"The authors also state that the climate is almost certain to warm by at least 1.5 C during the next 100 years," the Telegraph said.

While calls seeking response from representatives of the IPCC were not returned by press time, according to the IPCC website (http://www.ipcc.ch/AR4WG1-27oct06.pdf)a report compilation process is still underway, the deadline for submitting comments regarding the final draft having only passed on Friday, Dec. 8.

Earlier this year, IPCC Secretary Renate Christ issued a press release (http://www.ipcc.ch/press/pr02052006.htm) cautioning members of the media against reporting "findings" in the study until it had been finalized by the working group in 2007.

"In wake of several premature reports that have appeared recently in the media concerning 'findings'" from the IPCC, Christ said at the time the process leading up to the 2007 release was "long, complicated and far from complete."

Nevertheless, the Telegraph reported that "one leading U.K. climate scientist, who asked not to be named due to the sensitivity surrounding the report before it is published, said: 'The bottom line is that the climate is still warming while our greenhouse gas emissions have accelerated, so we are storing up problems for ourselves in the future.'"

Inhofe saw a different "bottom line" in the leaked information, however.

"With the continued scientific demise of man-made catastrophic global warming fears, the environmentalists, publicity- and grant-seeking scientists and many in the media may now have to find another dubious environmental doomsday cause to scare the public and policymakers," Inhofe said.

[johnfoss]

Furthermore, "large amounts of heat have been absorbed by the oceans, masking the warming effect."
Doesn't that mean the oceans got warmer? Isn't that what melts ice caps?

Inhofe saw a different "bottom line" in the leaked information, however.

"With the continued scientific demise of man-made catastrophic global warming fears, the environmentalists, publicity- and grant-seeking scientists and many in the media may now have to find another dubious environmental doomsday cause to scare the public and policymakers," Inhofe said.
I see a different "bottom line" here, even if this article has no merit or validity. If there is a constant "is! Isn't! Is!" situation about whether global warming is an imminent problem, people will become numbed to the idea and be less willing to go to large (expensive) measures to do anything about it. This numbness can be orchestrated by anyone with an agenda, such as an oil lobby that wants us to continue our addiction to oil with as little restriction as possible. That's where the money is, anyway.

[Triball]

I just saw the Inconvenient Truth....Holy Cow:eek:
We're so screwed

[spazdude222]

Glaobal Warming has a lot o do with the overpopulation of the earth. People give of heat, and quite a bit of it, so the more people, the more heat being given off. Some scientists acctually believe that this is a bigger contributor to global warming than cars! It's weird to think about, but it does make sense...
EDIT: i wanted to add, think of how many people in the world have cars...not many compared to the total population of our planet. Now consider how many people produce heat...all of us...

[habbywall]

We haven't had more than an inch of snow yet!

[ThisGuyIKnow]

Forrest sure loves the "fair and balanced" news sources.

[monkeyman]

Jeff sure loves to attack the source instead of actually arguing the issue.

[ThisGuyIKnow]

Jeff sure loves to attack the source instead of actually arguing the issue.

Well there is a reason why only certain news sources are the only ones reporting that global warming isn't real and it doesn't have to do with a liberal media conspiracy. John Foss already debunked the article in question this time around.

[NordicUni420]

okay, to start with, James Inhofe sucks and it's a good thing that he actually isn't chairman of the U.S. Senate Environment & Public Works Committee anymore. Barbara Boxer is (D-Calif.). the technology we have now to measure global temperature is many times more accurate that that of the 1930's. we can drill into the ice of the arctic and find out what the temperature was and the CO2 levels were when that snow fell thousands of years ago.it remained very steady until the industrial revolution, when it started to rise rapidly. if we stop emmitting all CO2 right now, the ice caps will continue to melt for another 500 or so years. the ice caps and ocean both play a huge roll in controling our climate, and since the ice caps are undoubtedly shrinking, albedo is also reduced (albedo is the term used to describe how the sun's light it reflected off of ice and the ocean back into the atmosphere). there are also more clouds today than ever before (more dirt particles in air mean more things for clouds to condense on). i seriosly reccomend An Inconvenient Truth to anyone who wants to learn more. man, that inhofe guy really grinds my gears!

[yoopers]

I just saw the Inconvenient Truth....Holy Cow:eek:
We're so screwed
.

[Danni]

Global warming is obvious, and will come and go (as all things do) but might take the whole human population with it. Anybody that disagrees with global warming is either ignorant or stupid.

Global warming is something that a lot of people know of: it is everywhere. The science behind it is very simple. Add the primary gases in the greenhouse layer, and obviously it's effect will increase. Duh.

Global dimming is less well known. Global dimming is something that actually cools the earth down: particles from exausts that are pumped dayly into the atmosphere give grounds for water to bind to, and relfect light. Do a search on google, it is very interesting.

There has been a precarious balance between these two for the last century. Now that britain and may other european countries (and kind of North A) are making laws of how much crap we put in the atmoshere (things on exausts like filters, and better technology in burning coal cleaner). This is adding more heat (less particles in the atmosphere = more sunlight hitting the lithosphere = increase in heat) and made more potent with global warming is getting serious. If we continue like we are now, and don't do anything, ocean levels will increase, ice that normally reflects light like greenland, north poles, glaciers etc will have melted, and now we will have even more sunlight being absorbed. Not only this but unfrozen permafrost will release Methane hydrate (which packs 8x more punch than CO2). The same stuff (methane hydrate), is in 2000 gigatons in the bottom of our oceans, and will come to the surface when the oceans get hotter, increasing yet even more our global temp.
2000 gigatons (2 000 000 000 000kg) of this shit in our atmosphere is a big problem.

People have to be less wasteful. I use my road bike to go to friends, and use public transport. Doing small things helps, and I am proud that I do it. I got my parents to get a small car that has very good mileage, and am right now trying to get them to get solar pannels. I think north americains like big trucks and huge houses, and this causes a lot of harm.

[john_childs]

Global warming is obvious, and will come and go (as all things do) but might take the whole human population with it. Anybody that disagrees with global warming is either ignorant or stupid.

Global warming is something that a lot of people know of: it is everywhere. The science behind it is very simple. Add the primary gases in the greenhouse layer, and obviously it's effect will increase. Duh.
And anyone who believes that we know with certainty about what's going on with global warming is either ignorant or stupid. Anyone who believes that the science is simple is either ignorant or stupid.

The science behind global warming is not simple. It is very complex. It is a lot more than just the greenhouse effect. Global warming is atmospheric science. It is PhDs running complicated computer simulations. It is more than just the greenhouse effect. It involves ocean currents, solar energy, air currents, global climate, natural cycles. Simplifying it down to the greenhouse effect and going duh is ignorant. Global warming and the greenhouse effect are not synonymous.

But where global warming gets really complicated is in the politics. Once the politics get involved and people start proposing radical political solutions the issue gets very very clouded. That's where you get the people denying global warming because they refuse to support radical political solutions that they see as fundamentally flawed. To argue science with them is futile. They will never give in just like they would never give in to communism. Come up with a solution that isn't politically radical and you can win them over. Come up with another Kyoto style solution and they'll dig their heels in harder and continue to deny.

[Jim_Rob]

And anyone who believes that we know with certainty about what's going on with global warming is either ignorant or stupid. Anyone who believes that the science is simple is either ignorant or stupid.

Whoa! Let's not call names here. You are both correct. The Greenhouse Effect is conceptually simple, but the whole story is rather complex. The word "certainty" is loaded. It's like "prove" and "exact". Scientists prefer to speak in more nuanced terms, with statistics and stuff.

The science behind global warming is not simple. It is very complex. It is a lot more than just the greenhouse effect. Global warming is atmospheric science. It is PhDs running complicated computer simulations.

Yeah, PhDs running computer models! And making measurements too! I'm all about that.

The sad truth is that we need much more than just the reductions specified in the Kyoto Accords, and we need the major Asian emitters, China and India, to commit to controls too. So I'm professionally optimistic, and personally pessimistic about how things will go in the next 50 yrs. Globally warming will need to get a lot worse before the sceptics will be satisfied and by then it will be too late. The fossil carbon industry has a multi-trillion dollar investment in "old carbon" (and I'm not talking about Harper here!) and they won't give it up without a fight. They will use each and every opportunity to disemble, deny and confuse the debate. Hey..... it's already happening.

[Triball]

Hey yoopers, why a piggy?

[yoopers]

Hey yoopers, why a piggy?
Well, it's more of a hog having a wash and exhibiting my whole feelings on the global warming argument.

[john_childs]

Whoa! Let's not call names here. You are both correct. The Greenhouse Effect is conceptually simple, but the whole story is rather complex. The word "certainty" is loaded. It's like "prove" and "exact". Scientists prefer to speak in more nuanced terms, with statistics and stuff.



Yeah, PhDs running computer models! And making measurements too! I'm all about that.

The sad truth is that we need much more than just the reductions specified in the Kyoto Accords, and we need the major Asian emitters, China and India, to commit to controls too. So I'm professionally optimistic, and personally pessimistic about how things will go in the next 50 yrs. Globally warming will need to get a lot worse before the sceptics will be satisfied and by then it will be too late. The fossil carbon industry has a multi-trillion dollar investment in "old carbon" (and I'm not talking about Harper here!) and they won't give it up without a fight. They will use each and every opportunity to disemble, deny and confuse the debate. Hey..... it's already happening.
Sorry to Danni. I didn't intend the reply to be name calling. I wrote it at 1 AM and was feeling grumpy.

Equating the greenhouse effect to proving global warming just set off a button. The greenhouse effect and global warming are not the same. The greenhouse effect does not prove predictions about global warming. Understanding the greenhouse effect does not mean you understand global warming. The greenhouse effect is but one component.

The sad (and ironically inconvenient <g>) truth is that conservation in developed countries like the US will not likely have an effect in the global sense. The hydrocarbon generated energy we conserve will only end up getting used by China and undeveloped (lesser developed) countries. The lesser developed countries will not burn that fuel as cleanly as we would. We can build cleaner power generating stations with scrubbers and all sorts of other "green" features. The lesser developed countries will not. They'll burn it dirty and just make more of a problem. Eventually all easily available oil will be burned. Same with coal. Is it going to be burned cleanly or dirty? We'd be better off to hoard all the oil and coal and gas in developed countries before the less developed countries can get to it.

I don't see much to be optimistic about in terms of reversing the man caused elements of global warming. We can always hope that the projections are on the high side.

[Jim_Rob]

We are 6% of the world's population and we use 25% of the energy resources. Unless you have a worldview (or theology) that leads you to the conclusion that we somehow "deserve" this, you have to admit there is an inequity. Personally I believe we have a responsibility to lead the world into a future energy economy that is renewable and responsible. Of course to do that we need leadership, not some bozo who can't even pronounce the word "nuclear".

[johnfoss]

That's where you get the people denying global warming because they refuse to support radical political solutions that they see as fundamentally flawed.
I think it's less political than it is financial. The political energy is only a byproduct of the strongest lobbyists. In other words, the ones with the most bucks behind them. In that regard I have to agree with Jim Rob.

[johnfoss]

Of course to do that we need leadership, not some bozo who can't even pronounce the word "nuclear".
Uh, true as that is, somehow it feels like an insult to us unicyclists... :p

[Borges]

Well, it's more of a hog having a wash and exhibiting my whole feelings on the global warming argument.
In case I wasn't the only one who had to look it up.

hog·wash (hôg'wôsh', -wŏsh, hŏg'-)
n.

1. Worthless, false, or ridiculous speech or writing; nonsense.
2. Garbage fed to hogs; swill.

[Jim_Rob]

Uh, true as that is, somehow it feels like an insult to us unicyclists... :p

Again with the Clown Thing!

[johnfoss]

If we are called clowns and our President is called a bozo, what does that make us? Even worse, what does that say about Bozo the Clown??

[sugarloafur]

Ok, I haven't weighed in on this issue yet... so here goes my weak attempt to rationalize so many ideas...

For starters, I have recently finished a course on ocean science taught by Dr. David Townsend. He's the director of the School of Marine Sciences here at the University of Maine. He conducts a lot of research in the Gulf of Maine with fish stocks, as well as tracking ocean currents, temperatures, salinity, and many many other very intriguing things. Yesterday he gave a very very influential eye-opening lecture. He cited many many statistics and facts that are very much evidence of global climate change and that the oceans are getting warmer. (If you're going to read this, you'll want to get the lecture material (http://grampus.umeoce.maine.edu/sms-100/Class-28-Slides-Dec-14-2006.pdf) that he used). It's no big secret. Someone mentioned fish stocks and how they are being depleted. This isn't as much of a global climate change issue as it is with over fishing. We've fished the stocks so much that it's likely that some species wont ever regenerate, and will likely die off, such as Cod. Landings of fish are increasing, and it's probably already too late to save some of the other species... back on topic.

We all know that the greenhouse effect is very important, in moderation. If we didn't have this effect, Earth would more or less turn into a planet like Mars. If there are too many greenhouse gasses (carbon dioxide) being emitted into the atmosphere, Earth will (give or take a LOT) turn more or less into Jupiter, with a very dense atmosphere. This greenhouse effect is very important to the climate on Earth, and it's important to have carbon dioxide in it. HOWEVER, over the past century (since the industrial revolution really...), the amount of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere has been increasing, exponentially. This spells danger. More on this in a moment...

First, one of the main ways that we know anything about the earth 450,000 years ago is through ice cores. These ice cores contain air pockets. The deeper in the core, the older the ice. These air pockets, when tested, let us determine the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at certain times in Earth's history.

Back on topic... carbon dioxide levels over the past 450,000 years are illustrated in the link provided, on page 12, third sheet. This clearly shows a cyclic pattern. Keep in mind that's 450,000 years. In all of those 450,000 years, the level of carbon dioxide barely, if ever, went above 300 ppm (parts per million). Look at the graph above it. This graph, page 12 of document, chart 2, is temperature plotted with carbon dioxide levels in ppm over the past 160,000 years (the last ice age). It shows a VERY strong relationship between the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the temperature.

Now, on page 13, charts 1 and 2 show the carbon dioxide levels (again, in ppm) over the past 300 years, and the past 50 years, respectively. Notice where the 300 ppm mark is. Over the past 300 years, this 300 ppm mark was broken around the year 1900. Since then, the amount of carbon dioxide has been increasing. See chart 2 on page 13... that's from 1958 to 2004. There is clearly a positive trend (the fluctuation is the seasons).

I'm not going to explain this very well, but here it goes… The ice caps are indeed melting. Look at page 15 of the notes, chart 1. Basically, they're melting from below. The added carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is reflecting more radiation from the sun into the Earth, especially the oceans. This is causing a general warming trend in the oceans. To over simplify a very complicated phenomenon and try to make it conceptual, the Gulf Stream moves towards the North pole, gets cooler, sinks, and circulates back to the Northern Pacific Ocean before resurfacing... When the water is warmed, the current warms up. When the current warms up, it goes to the North Pole with warmer water, therefore melting the ice cap. The diagram shows the ice cap in 1979 and again in 2003. It is getting smaller. As the cap melts, the fresh water that is coming from the melting is much less dense than the ocean water as it is cooling. This melted water is staying on the surface, and, in theory, slowing the gulf stream, which contributes greatly to global weather. Whew.

As for solutions, reducing dependency on fossil fuels is crucial. Not only reducing, but eliminating. My goal with this post was to convey the message that my professor got through to me yesterday. I hope I did it justice. It was the most amazing and beneficial hour of lecture that I have ever attended.

I'm providing a link here to some of the lecture material. All of the numbers I've used have come from this lecture, yesterday, December 14, 2006. Specifically, look at pages 10-16. Lecture Material (http://grampus.umeoce.maine.edu/sms-100/Class-28-Slides-Dec-14-2006.pdf).

A lot of this is questionable, as most things are. If you've made it this far, thank you for reading it. I've done my best to convey the messages my professor conveyed to me.

As a side note, I've been seriously struggling with this lately. It has got me in a really bad mood. It's December 15th, 50 degrees and raining in Maine... I'm having a very hard time figuring out what it is that I can do to help solve this problem. Not running my car is a good first step, but if I'm not running it, the person I sell it to will be. It's hard for me to sit back and watch what's happening (and what's not happening). DISCLAIMER: The science behind global climate is not conclusive, and therefore most of what I just said isn't conclusive. (And, I might have made some errors, too)

[johnfoss]

The sad (and ironically inconvenient <g>) truth is that conservation in developed countries like the US will not likely have an effect in the global sense. The hydrocarbon generated energy we conserve will only end up getting used by China and undeveloped (lesser developed) countries. The lesser developed countries will not burn that fuel as cleanly as we would. We can build cleaner power generating stations with scrubbers and all sorts of other "green" features. The lesser developed countries will not.
It sounds like you are saying we should just keep burning dirty. I disagree, and think we, and whoever else has the will, should set an example. The more we burn cleanly, the less there is for the rest of the world to burn dirty. Hmm. Sounds a little selfish. I don't think we mean to be selfish, it's just that we got to the point of being able to burn more fuels sooner than these developing countries...

[Borgschulze]

I read the Global Warming title...

It's 8 degrees celsius in Hamilton right now... middle of December?

[threeinchtire]

I cannot believe there are still people saying they don't "believe" in the concept of climate change (this is a more accurate term for 'global warming'). Are you honestly so ignorant that you do not understand the greater implications of this? We are all living here, and even though we aren't going to stay here for that long in the scheme of things, think about it for posterity's sake. On this note, there is NO debate among credible scientists. They are all in agreement that climate change is taking place and the only controversy is coming from uneducated sources.

Okay, I'm going to refer to this whole concept as global climate change because some parts of the world are getting colder (it's complicated) and it's a bit misleading to refer to is as global warming. Anyways...as you can see in the various graphs posted by other people and particularly in the evidence provided by Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, there are very serious upward trends in greenhouse gasses numbers. These (methane and CO2 are the biggies) have a very strong correlation with the average global temperature. As the amounts of these gasses increase, even when measured in ppm and ppb, the temperature goes up. This is very clearly shown on these graphs and dates back a loooooooong way. Before you old guys were around even. People have also mentioned albedo, which on its own has a relatively stable impact on the earth, however when other factors are weighed in (human influences on these amounts, i.e. post industrial revolution) things change. When the poles are shrinking, and they are, FAST, it reduces the amount of surface that is helping keep this system in balance and messes stuff up. Ocean currents being affected is another point that has already been brought up, and the earth as we know it is pretty much reliant on these currents to keep everything running together. But, with ice from the poles melting, it's throwing it completely out of whack. Kyoto is a step in the right direction, but it is quite costly for how little it actually does. It honestly won't make that much of a difference if followed strictly, and since it's voluntary even less is actually going to change. I don’t understand the political side of Kyoto so much, because it seems to me that there’s no reason not to support it when it doesn’t actually require doing anything.

Though this is some speculation, there are many, many potential implications down the road if we don't make changes soon. Hurricanes: we had a rough hurricane year last year. Climate change is making the ocean warmer (for the most part), though only by a few degrees. Overall these changes are quite minor; however their effects are very significant. When hurricanes form the severity of the storm is strongly reliant on the temperature of the water it’s drawing from, and changes of just one single degree can mean that the hurricane turns into a level four, as opposed to a level three. These temperature changes aren’t going to make more storms occur, but when they do happen it’s going to make them more severe. Rising water levels: with glaciers melting and the water that was for so long trapped on land, is added to the ocean, it gets bigger (duh). A lot of the land we currently inhabit is very close to sea level, and overall rises of only a few feet would significantly reduce landmass. This also, affects albedo….




Some ranting/responses.: We are not going to ‘run out’ of fossil fuels. But, sooner or later it’s going to be too expensive to pull that stuff out of the ground, and we will be stuck. The energy industry is very much aware of this. They have spent millions (probably a lot more) already preparing for when fossil fuels are no longer a viable alternative. They are going to be ready to supply us with what we need to keep going when we run out of oil. However, there is still plenty more oil for the time being, and they’re going to keep making money off it for as long as possible. Also, in response to the car discussion: automakers CAN make more fuel efficient vehicles. The technology is there! But, they have no incentive to at the moment, and they too are going to make as much money as possible producing these behemoth monsters while they still can. Luckily this is beginning to change. Companies like Toyota are producing cars that get better gas mileage and they are working to increase capabilities.

Anyway…if you’ve read thus far, I’ll be…..surprised. But it’s raining in Nova Scotia right now, and when I go home in a few days I know there’s no snow there either. Not cool. There ought to be snow in Maine in the end of December.



Yup…that’s what I’ve got to say.


Another interesting resource: a PBS series called Strange Days on Planet Earth, hosted by actor Edward Norton:
http://www.pbs.org/strangedays/index_flash.html

[Da Doofus]

Anyway…if you’ve read thus far, I’ll be…..surprised. But it’s raining in Nova Scotia right now, and when I go home in a few days I know there’s no snow there either. Not cool. There ought to be snow in Maine in the end of December.

I couldn't have said it better myself Tyler. As of right now, I'm sitting here, in late December, looking out my window, and it looks no different then the spring. Personally, I find this very sad. As a die-hard skier, I live for snow, and have been known to plan my week around where I can find snow. Right now, there is one place (correct me if I'm wrong, I'll be glad to hear it) in New England that has nordic ski-able snow, and it's really only a alpine trail that is roped off.

But don't get me wrong, This isn't all about skiing, or even snow, no matter how much I would like to think it is. I heard somewhere (I don't actually remember where) that every year, your climate moves 5 miles south. This doesn't sound like a lot, but considering that climates aren't supposed to move, it is. As someone that lives in Maine, I'm used to winters where we have to dig the car out in the morning, just to get to school, but in the last two years, we've had none of these.

So this is the part you want to read if you didn't feel like reading my venting.
You need to help! Everyone reading this is capable of helping cut down on carbon dioxide emissions, the main cause of Climate change. This means that this summer, starting riding your Uni, or even your bike, more places, and leave the car at home. For those of you that are thinking about building a home (probably not many, but just in case) look into alternate sources of energy--install solar panels, while they might seem expensive, you'll save money eventually, and you'll help prevent climate change. Or even simpler, change the bulbs in your house next time they burnout to those fancy new ones that conserve energy.
This all sounds like a lot of work, but I'm 15, and I've done all of this, with the exception of installing solar panels on my families house, but I've been working on this lately. Please-try to do your part to save my skiing.

[tumblebug rollin]

I seem to remember some statistics having to do with the amount of CO2 ejected into the atmosphere when Mount St. Helens erupted. If I remember correctly they said that during the eruption a CO2 content equicalent to every current internal combustion engin on the planet running 24/7 for 100 years was released. Maybe someone out there remembers that statistic or can correct me if that's not correct.
If it's correct the Democrats need to outlaw volcanoes.
If we are indeed the culprits, the meek shall inherit the earth. God probably likes cockroaches better anyway-------He's had longer to perfect a working model.

[monkeyman]

Anyway…if you’ve read thus far, I’ll be…..surprised. But it’s raining in Nova Scotia right now, and when I go home in a few days I know there’s no snow there either. Not cool. There ought to be snow in Maine in the end of December.

Well it snowed this year in Texas. There ought to not be snow in Texas in early December. Saying that you had a warm winter is not evidence of global warming.

/soapbox

[johnfoss]

If it's correct the Democrats need to outlaw volcanoes.
Why the Democrats? Oh. Because the Republicans never would. :D

Yup, there have been volcanoes going off from time to time all through history (and pre-history, and the stuff before that).
Apparently they aren't the problem.

And yes, to back up Monkeyman, all you people talking about how this winter is warmer than last winter (when winter hasn't even actually started yet) has nothing to do with the problem, and only serves to dilute the argument, especially if it appears at the end of a really great description of the facts.

[Jerrick]

Well it snowed this year in Texas. There ought to not be snow in Texas in early December. Saying that you had a warm winter is not evidence of global warming.

/soapbox


And you getting snow in Texas doesnt mean that Global Warming doesnt exist.

[threeinchtire]

And yes, to back up Monkeyman, all you people talking about how this winter is warmer than last winter (when winter hasn't even actually started yet) has nothing to do with the problem, and only serves to dilute the argument, especially if it appears at the end of a really great description of the facts.

I wasn't trying to argue that point, because you're completely right; having a few warm winters in a row is not evidence of climate change at all. I was merely commenting on the current situation that had got me thinking about the issue. And monkeyman, like I said before the concept of 'global warming' doesn't mean everywhere is getting warmer, some places are getting colder too. It just means the mean temperature is rising. But I don't think snow in Texas is an example of this...

[monkeyman]

And you getting snow in Texas doesnt mean that Global Warming doesnt exist.

That wasn't my point. What I was saying is that trying to submit something like that as evidence weakens your case. It doesn't prove anything.

[threeinchtire]

That wasn't my point. What I was saying is that trying to submit something like that as evidence weakens your case. It doesn't prove anything.


You're right, this is not good evidence at all. But that doesn't mean other things that were said are not valid...

[monkeyman]

You're right, this is not good evidence at all. But that doesn't mean other things that were said are not valid...

Their validity isn't in question. Oceans are getting hotter, that could mean hotter hurricanes, etc.. I'll believe/agree with all that. But it's not objective evidence. You still have to interpret it as you see fit. Everything I've seen points to climate cycles, not just linear, one-way change. I haven't seen An Inconvenient Truth, but I watched him on an Oprah show showing (I assume) the same things. All the graphs of the fluctuation in temperature/CO2 had just that, fluctuation. Before humans existed. There were never any explanations how or why the Earth did this.

It happens naturally...CO2/temperature go up, then go back down, go back up, go back down, lather, rinse, repeat. The funny thing is, people sometimes say that I don't have enough respect for the planet if I refuse to support the "cause" of global warming, or whatever you want to call it. The fact that I respect the planet is the very reason that I don't. Look around you, there's so much neat stuff out there. I believe that the world can adapt to just about anything that happens. Short of a nuclear war, flooding our oceans with chemicals, and destroying all the trees, I don't think that we can completely mess up the world.

[sugarloafur]

It happens naturally...CO2/temperature go up, then go back down, go back up, go back down, lather, rinse, repeat. The funny thing is, people sometimes say that I don't have enough respect for the planet if I refuse to support the "cause" of global warming, or whatever you want to call it. The fact that I respect the planet is the very reason that I don't. Look around you, there's so much neat stuff out there. I believe that the world can adapt to just about anything that happens. Short of a nuclear war, flooding our oceans with chemicals, and destroying all the trees, I don't think that we can completely mess up the world.


You're soooooooooooooo wrong. People are polluting the oceans. People are a parasitic infestation of earth. Our population increase shows this. You don't think we can completely mess up earth? WRONG. It's happening. There is tons of evidence of this (coastal pollution, fish stock reduction, whaling, CO2 levels, etc, etc, etc, the list just goes on). The way you interpret the evidence is entirely up to you, but keep in mind that your interpretation would likely be wrong compared to the top scientists in the field. After looking at the evidence myself, I agree, and take their word for it. I don't know enough about the subject to provide more of an argument without more research myself. 'Believe' what you want, but sometimes it's not a matter of what you choose to 'believe' in. Read my post about it again. Look at the graphs. It is cyclic, you're right. However, there are certain phenomenon that have not happened before, or at least as far back as we can scientifically prove. 450,000 years. And you think that it's just a coincidence that the atmosphere has just decided to arbitrarily increase the CO2 levels naturally? You don't think it has anything to do with the fact that humans created combustion engines? Clearly these trends exist, and clearly the one we're in now is out of whack, which, in my mind, clearly lines up with humans emitting CO2 into the atmosphere. So, clearly, in my mind again, this is not merely a coincidence.

[Wedgehog]

I still believe that global warming is half of what it sounds like. That hole in the Ozone layer is healing... why? If we produce so much emissions why is it healing? I thunk that hole was there merely to expel all these extra gases and since a lot of trees have been replanted in the last 30 years (since we started to worry about it) they have been taking a share of Co2.
If you really want to stop the "pandemic" somehow manipulate the human body with plant cells. That'll stop this precious global warming thing in a heartbeat.

On the other hand I feel global warming is yet another dumb manipulation move that people feel we need to understand whats around us. So after thinking a while I came up with "um.. I don't think anything really cares." Because global warming is a selfish issue. It only really effects us (human beings) directly as we are the only ones so worried about it. Once we die off life will keep on going regardless the temperate changes or climate fluxes. It's been doing in for a couple million years and been through a lot worse. This planet was designed by life and only a catastrophic explosion of the sun or this planet will stop it.. life will still just wonder on to another planet.

Yeah.. I'm cynnical

[threeinchtire]

That hole in the Ozone layer is healing... why? If we produce so much emissions why is it healing? I thunk that hole was there merely to expel all these extra gases and since a lot of trees have been replanted in the last 30 years (since we started to worry about it) they have been taking a share of Co2.


The hole in the Ozone layer is healing? How come nobody told me? Someone please enlighten me as to where this information comes from.

In regard to the trees we have replanted: they represent an extremely tiny fraction of the CO2 reducing force we rely on. Not only that, but we as a species continued to cut down trees during this time and have failed to adequately replace them. I know that many lumber companies and such are now replacing the trees they farm (it's in their best interest too), but there is no way that we are capable of bringing the number of trees back up to its former level...


So after thinking a while I came up with "um.. I don't think anything really cares." Because global warming is a selfish issue. It only really effects us (human beings) directly as we are the only ones so worried about it.


It does NOT just affect us. Just because we are the only beings on earth capable of realising the greater implications of climate change doesn't mean that we are the only ones it affects. That's like saying that the only people who ever get hit by cars are the ones who see it coming. I think not. The natural world stands to lose more than we do; entire species are dying out, animal migrations that have happened for as long back as we know are being disrupted, and habitats are being destroyed. Because we know about climate change and we have had a direct effect on the current situation, we are better prepared to deal with it in the future than plants or animals. Thus, as higher beings, it should be our responsibility to fix the situation so that others don't face the (extremely dire) consequences of the problem we have created. Capiche?

[milk]

People are a parasitic infestation of earth.

Reminds me of this:

"I'd like to share a revelation that I've had, during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet, you are a plague, and we are the cure." - Agent Smith, The Matrix

[Jim_Rob]

Yeah.. I'm cynnical
And not very knowledgeable about the Atmosphere too.

I still believe that global warming is half of what it sounds like. That hole in the Ozone layer is healing... why? If we produce so much emissions why is it healing? I thunk that hole was there merely to expel all these extra gases and since a lot of trees have been replanted in the last 30 years (since we started to worry about it) they have been taking a share of Co2.

A short lesson in Atmospheric Science. The Ozone "hole" is caused by chlorofluorocarbons, not CO2. It is a hole only in the sense that there is little or no ozone where there should be a lot (the polar stratosphere). There is still plenty of gas there (the total pressure hasn't changed) and the atmosphere is well mixed with respect to CO2 (at least unitl you get up to the ionosphere). So there is no way the ozone hole could be letting "extra gases" out. The ozone hole as been, and will continue to, recover slowly in the next 40 years. This is because we got together (the nations of the world) and agreed to phase out the use of chemicals that deplete stratospheric ozone. Models predict and the data shows a slow recovery has begun.

[BillyTheMountain]

Models predict and the data shows a slow recovery has begun.

Ha. Polar bears are drowning because theres too much water and not enough glaciers already. They predict that in less than 40 years in the summer there will be NO polar ice cap, so where will the animals stand?

[sugarloafur]

Ha. Polar bears are drowning because theres too much water and not enough glaciers already. They predict that in less than 40 years in the summer there will be NO polar ice cap, so where will the animals stand?

I'm pretty sure he was referring to the hole in the ozone... not global climate change.

[wobbling bear]

Ha. Polar bears are drowning because theres too much water and not enough glaciers already. They predict that in less than 40 years in the summer there will be NO polar ice cap, so where will the animals stand?
keep your fridge locked !

[Unimichael]

I seem to remember some statistics having to do with the amount of CO2 ejected into the atmosphere when Mount St. Helens erupted. If I remember correctly they said that during the eruption a CO2 content equicalent to every current internal combustion engin on the planet running 24/7 for 100 years was released. Maybe someone out there remembers that statistic or can correct me if that's not correct.

"Volcanism produces about 3% of the total CO2 with the other 97% coming from man-made sources. "
http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/frequent_questions/grp6/question1375.html/]
I guess if you add up all the cars and all the cooking fires in the world, we are more gasous than volcanoes...
But volcanoes also dispell nastier stuff than mere CO2.

I have heard other volcano claims, including a "mini ice age" being caused by eruptions.

[skilewis74]

Has anyone seen this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQmz6Rbpnu0&feature=related

It's 6:42 long, but worth it.


We all need to do a lot more. Force our politicians to make it a priority, buy from green companies, drive less, take public transit more, buy more efficient cars, recycle more, etc.

[yoopers]

Has anyone seen this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQmz6Rbpnu0&feature=related

It's 6:42 long, but worth it.


We all need to do a lot more. Force our politicians to make it a priority, buy from green companies, drive less, take public transit more, buy more efficient cars, recycle more, etc.
The young lady left out the word "brainwashed" in the description of herself and her compadres.

[wickedbob]

The young lady left out the word "brainwashed" in the description of herself and her compadres.

Yep, yep, yep.

That was such a guilt trip, she isn't scared of anything.

[wickedbob]

Has anyone seen this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQmz6Rbpnu0&feature=related

It's 6:42 long, but worth it.


We all need to do a lot more. Force our politicians to make it a priority, buy from green companies, drive less, take public transit more, buy more efficient cars, recycle more, etc.


Why do I need to do a lot more? Why should I fork out extra money to get something from a 'green' company? Could this not be a scam to get more money? If that is the case it seems to work, now even at local groceries stores I have to read signs that says their green.

[AlanChambers]

The young lady left out the word "brainwashed" in the description of herself and her compadres.

The video dates from 1992. I assume the speech was written by her father, an environmental activist. This kind of cheesy guilt trip does nothing for the environment.

However, it is clear that there is environmental degradation from many human activities. The Earth is a big resource, with a large capacity for sustainable exploitation, but not infinite. How many Western-consumption-level-wannabe humans does it take to degrade things to the point where we all stop living in denial of this self-evident fact? If not 6 billion, we'll see what 9 billion looks like soon enough. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

The current obsession with CO2 emissions, as if this is the only issue facing us, is distracting and pointless.


Al

[john_childs]

Get ready for environmental theater all in the name of doing *something*.

Seattle may impose fee for paper, plastic grocery bags (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008038566_grocerybag08m0.html)
It's all just theater to look like they're making a difference and that they care. :rolleyes: You gotta do something. Anything.

We don't need government fining us for using disposable grocery bags. That's an inconvenience. And why lump in paper bags? They complain that the plastic bags blow in the wind and litter up when they're littered by irresponsible people. Responsible people already dispose of them properly. Why penalize.

Grocery stores are already promoting the use of reusable bags. I have several for grocery shopping and use them when I can remember to bring them. There is no need for government to make me, I already choose to when I can.

A better idea would be to fine everyone who drives to the local grocery store. I've been riding my bike to get groceries when I can. I'm already greener than the fat Seattle mayor.

[AlanChambers]

A better idea would be to fine everyone who drives to the local grocery store. I've been riding my bike to get groceries when I can. I'm already greener than the fat Seattle mayor.

The leader of the Tories in the UK made a big deal out of cycling to Parliament, and then it transpired that his car was being driven behind him anyway. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4953922.stm. Pillock!

Now the Tories are proposing to pay us to recycle. They claim this is based on successful US schemes. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7496709.stm. Questions: Does anyone here live with one of these schemes? Is it just theatre?


Al

[SqueakyOnion]

Questions: Does anyone here live with one of these schemes? Is it just theatre?


I've read about and seen a video clip of a town that uses an incentive program, rather than paying in cash. The more residents recycle (forget how its calculated, weight or per item maybe), the more "points" they get, which can be redeemed for certain things, like movie tickets, gift cards, sports tickets, or household items. I also seem to remember this town coming up on my local television news station.

[Bondo]

Paid to recycle?
I wish.

We have to pay someone to come get our recycling.
I've never heard of these "programs."

[JJuggle]

Paid to recycle?
I wish.

We have to pay someone to come get our recycling.
I've never heard of these "programs."
I'm in the middle. I don't have pay to recycle, but don't get paid to do it. I too am unfamiliar with programs that pay people to recycle.

[SqueakyOnion]

Not everyone even agrees that you should recycle. Here's a Wikipedia Article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recycling_criticism) that outlines some of the concerns.

I haven't really made a decision, but my recycling gets picked up free and the county gives us two cans, one for trash and recycling. If I didn't recycle, the trash can would fill up too fast, I think...so I'll recycle for now.