Printable View
....are being visited upon our land this day.
Any normal understanding of the theory of 'cause-and-effect' is taking it's lumps.
The weather is absolutely gorgeous.
Check out the photo essay.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,145107,00.html
I'm going out to tan, now.
:D
i imagine that there's quite a lot which defies normal understanding of cause-and-effect. a hippocratic physician's normal understanding was that too much water caused a person to be phlegmatic, and a hopi shaman's normal understanding was that a rain dance caused rainfall. it's prolly a bit premature to think that we've got a firm handle on this cause-and-effect thing. i mean, what's thought of as the height of enlightenment (or even plain old common sense) in one era may well be regarded as mere superstition, later on. :P
1 Gallon of gas = 19.6 pounds of carbon. Where does that carbon go? We can't just friggin wish it away, and shipping lanes be damned, the Polar Ice Melt is just not good.
-SJ™
@SJ
Well obviously we can't wish it away, but alas some people are just plain ignorant. They'll say things like "oh don't worry, won't happen for another 100 years". When the fact of the matter is that it's already happening.
I don't care if global warming is fact or fiction...there is no excuse for the amount we polute.
There are those, very high in government, that believe the world won't be around but so long so they do for themselves. Also read up on Dominion Heresy.Quote:
Originally Posted by cpt_azad
Ok guys, i guess we should forget all about global warming cus j2k4 found some cold weather...Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Global warming will cause a general heating of the planet, but also wilder weather, more extremes, which in some cases means extreme cold. I don't know how global warming plays into this specific storm, but you would have to be pretty stupid to seriously think global warming is a sham because it snowed a lot in Utah. I know you are conservative, but to deny global warming is just silly. REAL conservatives would be worried about the environment just as much as they would about lower taxes. You sir, watch too much Fox News and have been brainwashed. I am willing to take your blind conservatism and big words to a certain point, but this is just madness.
Global warming has been happening for millenia. The cycle of warming and cooling has been happening for millions of years.
The Nile valley is now just a narrow strip of fertility intersecting the Sahara desert - whereas the surrounding area was once lush grasslands and jungle, it is now arid desert. I'm talking as little as 9000 years ago. In The UK we were buried under ice sheets right down to the Thames. It's now temperate here.
Ice Age, thaw, Ice Age, thaw, Ice Age, thaw. Think of it as a perpetual sine wave.
Sure, pollution is a bad thing - the general shittyness of the countryside and coastlines is awful, we ought to be ashamed of ourselves but stop blaming temperature fluctuations on Cadillacs, k.
J2, don't you usually get these big snows? :D
My point, and well-stated.Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
In the '70s it was global cooling, and there was "NO WAY OUT!!!"
Now it's global warming, and, uh....."THERE'S NO WAY OUT!!!"
Not to bemoan the problem of pollution (in all it's manifestations); I am as concerned as any of you, whether you think so or not, but even the most knee-jerk environmentalist wouldn't proffer the notion that man at his most evil (think Saddam and his torch-party during Gulf War I) could make Mother Nature move any more quickly than she is inclined to.
As tragically proven by the recent events in Indonesia, She isn't obligated to sound us mortals out with regard to Her plan, is she?
Just because warming and cooling have been going on for millennia does not mean our present pollution is not affecting things. Natural warming and cooling would happen at a set rate, whatever that is, we just don't know. What we are doing could well accelerate things with catastrophic effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
We also don't know what causes the hole in the ozone layer and what effect that would have, we know fluorocarbons destroy ozone, and we know we have been releasing billions of tons of it. What we do know is that skin cancers have increased in countries lying beneath the hole.
One thing we cannot do is fail to take pollution seriously.
j2k4, you have made some pretty naive statements on here, this is one of your best.
Are you saying that turning forests into deserts doesn't affect the weather?
Are you saying a hole in the ozone layer twice the size of the US will have no long term consequence?
Are you saying the pollution caused since the start of the industrial revolution has had no effect?
Are you saying the increase in population, and the subsequent land clearing and city building has had no effect?
Quite.Quote:
Originally Posted by UKResident
I think I made it clear that pollution is an altogether bad thing, we should pollute as little as possible. My Cadillac comment was an allusion to the knee-jerk merchants who make claims akin to; 'high fuel consumption and cheap gas prices in the US will make us all melt.'
I simply don't know if our activities are the sole cause of the effect on the ozone layer, I'd guess not tho'.
As an avid proponant of evolutionary theory, you should be the first to doff your cap to nature's uncanny ability to adjust; we're burning fossil fuels and dumping chemicals in the sea, in the Cretaceous period a meteorite hit us and wiped out 90% of species while dumping billions upon billions of tons of pollutants all over the globe - yet she coped with that.
Lowering pollution and the avoidance of totally asset stripping our planet is an excellent ethos for one to adopt for a wide range of reasons, the possible effect of intensifying climactic change if we do not, is merely one of them.
Apologies for the caps; something has gone amiss with my controls.Quote:
Originally Posted by UKResident
:lol: :lol: - with, not at.Quote:
Apologies for the caps; something has gone amiss with my controls.
I quite agree re: the volcanic eruptions, I went for the more catastrophic meteorite impact to demonstrate the point but each serve as marvellous illustration tools.
One day there will be a collective 'Oh yeah!'. Soon, I hope ;)
Well put. :w00t: (..at you not on you.)Quote:
In fact as we are part of the problem perhaps the solution would involve us not being here any more.
Manker, the consequence of the meteorite you speak of was mass extinction. The consequence of rapid warming, or cooling, could have the same effect.
j2k4, l was referring to this remark ..
l was also replying to your well documented aversion to all things 'Liberal' ie. caring about things one sees as important.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
And please don't shout, l may be on the other side of the Atlantic but l hear you perfectly, believe me.
The Earth will be fine, it is humanity I worry about. We can say as much as we want that there are natural fluctuations of weather patterns and I sure remember the "Big Chill" of the 70's but facts are facts. Since the advent of the industrial revolution we as a race have dumped untold amounts of carbon (amongst other things) into the atmosphere. That is fact. These gases also will add up to playing havoc with weather patterns.
The thing is we are not as a race going to give up0 the technology we have now. Even the most hardcore protesting greepeace member still probably needs to drive to the grocery store. So it is up to us to find other ways to deal with these issues, alternate energy sources and technology.
"Global warming" does not necessarilly mean it gets hotter, just that the likelyhood of changes is more manifest.
Or this tidbit: Greenhouse gasses heat the earths surface at a rate of 2 watts per square meter, worldwide, and only the oceans ability to regulate heat prevents it (at the moment) from getting worse . Of course one gravitational flux, one asteroid hitting, any sort of thing can happen to change climate, but the fact is we as humans are greatly altering something we don't know enough about. Like I said: the Earth will be fine, it's those of us living on it I worry about.
Just look at the amount of packaging that exists for everything and anything. Packaging alone saddens me. We must learn to live properly with our technology. I mean at the point when we have the most knowledge about the planet, suddenly there are more cars on the road than ever, and car tires themselves are a whole other evnironmental issue.
This is a subject that concerns me.
-SJ™
First off, everyone is quite correct that we should be concerned about pollution, it clearly will effect the quality of our atmosphere.Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperJude™
Manker makes a good point in giving people a little perspective as to the climate of the Earth "big picture". Compared to the natural fluctuations in the Earth's temperature, global warming is like worrying about a hill when you're already standing on a mountain. This does not mean he is not concerned about warming, no, he is just telling the Chicken Little's to stop squawking about things they don't really understand.
Manker also makes the point that the Earth tends to adjust to changes in the environment.
SuperJude, do you want to know what happens to the carbon dioxide we produce? We don't need to wish it away, plants use it as food and make oxygen. So all this carbon dioxide is great for plants, which make more oxygen for us. So the Earth may well adapt to increased levels of carbon dioxide by growing more plants.
Photosynthesis:
6H2O + 6CO2 ----------> C6H12O6+ 6O2
http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/...IOBK/leaf1.gif
I drew this picture for this thread, really I did. :wacko:
bonus material- this will not be on the test.
Quote:
What would be interesting, as a bit of a rambling theory, is that if we were to abruptly switch from fossil fuels to an alternate source which does not produce CO2, it would be equivalent to famine for plants and they would die the worldover. This would then let us observe evolution as only those plants with the best ability to trap CO2 would survive in the new depleted environment.
If that was the case, how did the Earth come to be covered in lush forests before we started polluting?Quote:
What would be interesting, as a bit of a rambling theory, is that if we were to abruptly switch from fossil fuels to and alternate source which does not produce CO2, it would be equivalent to famine for plants and they would die the worldover. This would then let us observe evolution as only those plants with the best ability to trap CO2 would survive in the new depleted environment.
Public EyesQuote:
Forests are often called ‘the lungs of the world’ able to soak up carbon dioxide and produce the oxygen we need to live.
But now researchers at the Australian Canopy Crane Research Facility are finding worrying evidence that this forest has begun to do the unthinkable. It’s started to produce carbon dioxide.
Hobbes.
In factoring this theory did you take into account mans destruction of said "greenery" ?
I agree totally that the earth will adjust, I also feel that man has the ability to make changes faster than nature can adjust...as some have said...the earth will survive...perhaps man may not be so lucky ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by UKResident
According to the article, microbes were producing more Co2 than the trees were consuming. This was felt due to a drought which was stressing the trees ability to utilize photosynthesis.
You are questioning my theory because a local drought caused trees to stress? Local variations in climate are common, but they fail to reflect the big picture.
6H2O + 6CO2 ----------> C6H12O6+ 6O2
In this case, it is water, not CO2 that is the rate limiting factor in this equation.
Some of my stocks lost money last year, others made money, overall my portfolio shows a net increase.
Pollution of the environment is not good.
As Mogadishu said, it is surprising that more Consevatives are not concerned (as they own most of the environment :) ) Try chucking an empty beer can into a suburban garden and you will soon generate an interest in pollution.
I fear we are all NIMBYs by nature - it is human nature. Real concern over climate change (whether man made or natural) will concentrate minds when the back gardens are compromised.
I apologize again for "shouting"; in order for me to interject point-by-point, I was reduced to caps, as other options are not currently working, for whatever reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by UKResident
I am at a loss as to why my remark about Saddam should have caused any discomfort; I cannot discern any significant or lingering ill-effect (other than monetary) owing to his pique.
As to this "well-documented aversion" you refer to:
Biggles as well seems to believe, as I am conservative, I am thereby precluded from holding or expressing any concerns with environmental matters.
I would urge you both to recall what the very word conservative means, and explain to me why it should not apply?
Do you libs claim a monopoly on environmental sentiment or something?
BTW-
If the next Ice Age begins next year, how are you going to blame it on Conservatives or American big business, having invested all of your political capitol and credibility in the global warming scenario?
Would it not be preferrable to keep your options open; i.e., honestly expressing your true belief that, no matter what ills befall the big blue marble, it is the fault of Conservative big-business America, or any variation thereof?
Irony of ironies....Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley
SO DO I!!!! :D
An' I been tole, then, huh?:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley
http://www.nigelhumour.co.uk/j2k.jpg
So polution isn't the cause? :unsure: ;)
...of something that arguably doesn't even exist?:huh:Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
That would be difficult to say.:D
Btw. shouldn't you be j2k5 now? or am i off the mark of the origins of the name?
J2
Infamy! Infamy! :)
I did not mean what you thought I meant, I think. :blink:
I was merely amused by the small irony of consevatives not conserving due to alternative priorites (i.e. profit)
Of course this cannot be translated across the board as conservatives are a broad church and the Highland Laird who lives in his castle with his land his life is going to have a different political outlook on conservation from someone dealing in oil shares on Wall Street - although they might both drive 4x4s.
I really should not post and try and make dinner at the same time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggles
:lol:
But infamy looks so good on you.
Back to basics, then:
You should try to cook dinner, not try "and", okay?
Success awaits!
(Sorry-don't get to do that, ever.:D )
Methinks also that some who are assholes are being gifted improperly with the sobriquet of "conservative"; make no mistake, they do exist.
vid:
You are off the mark, though, as it is your habit, I am loathe to relieve you of it. :P
It is now, but is was 7.18 when I made the somewhat opaque postage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley
Dinner was successfully accomplished and teh kinder and ex were most complementary. I have the chicken gravy down to a fine art these days.
That's excellent, then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggles
Gravy of any sort is a gambler's nightmare.
As the old joke goes "the chicken was committed to it whereas I ..."Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley
I wrote a whole load of bollocks, but thought that a few pictures would speak louder than all those words.
http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming....ges/vostok.jpg
Just for reference on the CO2 one above we are currently at 380ppm ie the scale would have to be increased by 60% to plot our curent concentration.
http://www.planktos.com/images/CO2.gif
http://www.planktos.com/images/co2_conc_em.gif
http://www.planktos.com/images/globaltemp.gif
http://www.planktos.com/images/iceagetempcycles.gif
http://www.planktos.com/images/execsu1.gif
Lovely C02 temperature correlation.
Not sure what Manny would say about a 400,000 year old ice core though. :)
God liked to give things an "antique" effect :unsure:Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggles
lmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by Biggles
and its true when i was looking into all those creationism/evangelism websites for the evolution topic, they all dismissed global warming (and indeed pretty much all pollution) as nonsense, which i suppose makes sense if the earth is only 6000 years old and god is always on hand to sort out any big mistakes :rolleyes:
bit disturbing though.
Unfortunately, if you accept a young earth then such fluctuations cannot possibly be, therefore any science data associated with such predictions has to, by default, be flawed. Fortunately, there are not enough young earthers to make a difference to the climate.Quote:
Originally Posted by ilw
I do not believe for one moment that the Whitehouse gives such stuff credence. Any stalling on moves to deal with emissions is purely economic with one eye towards changing policy if the fan looks messy.
j2k4, as incredible as it may seem, global warming could well bring on another ice age. You can GOOGLE lots of articles about this. The Ice Age temperature chart posted by ilw shows how ice ages follow periods of high temperature, suggesting they are brought about by said temperatures.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Terrence Joyce, senior scientist at the prestigious Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts, recently developed a theory that links this gaseous heating of the planet to the onset of a possible ice age.
His article in the New York Times, titled "The Heat Before the Cold," warns: "paradoxically, global warming could actually bring colder temperatures to some highly populated areas like Eastern North America and Western Europe."
Joyce said there has been a gradual buildup of fresh water in the North Atlantic, caused by the melting Arctic ice, which is lowering the salt content of the ocean. This, in turn, threatens to slow or turn the ocean current of warm water that flows from the tropics northward along the East Coast of the United States before turning toward Europe.
Hobbes: That particular article was indeed based on local conditions, however, it has global consequences. If stress, in the form of drought, or anything else, can cause forests to emit CO2, changing weather patterns, such as El Ninos, could have catastrophic effects in unexpected ways.