April 28, 2024, 06:54:27 PM

Author Topic: Island disappears..global Warming .....Global Warning!  (Read 14276 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline The_Ice

  • My band, Red Vellum Razorblades ... enjoy :D
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 650
  • RVR guitarist
    • View Profile
    • Red Vellum Razorblades
Re: What Global Warming? Canada still cold ent?
« Reply #60 on: April 08, 2009, 03:33:25 PM »
global warming does not mean that everywhere's going to get warmer... some places definitely will while other's will receive greater precipitation due to the increases in evaporation in warmer regions... i think that is kind of what's going on in canada... higher precipitation and due to its latitude and maybe most of the cloud cover being at a high atmospheric level they're getting more rain and snow... low temps may be due to increases in cloud cover and a therefore higher albido effect... lower levels of the atmosphere therefore dont receive much heat... it may also be a case of a region w/ wind currents being distributed towards the more central areas of canada being affected as such... i did no research on this btw... i just kind of thought of it as such since when i went to canada last month it was still bloody cloudy and chilly  ;D... anyways that guy who thinks there's no global warming needs to crawl out his mother asshole... its the bloody dry season in trinidad and still raining bad almost every to everyother day... and dont come w/ and shit such as if global warming exists t&t should be getting hotter

Offline Blue

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
    • View Profile
Re: What Global Warming? Canada still cold ent?
« Reply #61 on: April 08, 2009, 03:37:47 PM »
Genuine question (cuz I am not an environmentalist in the slightest) - what are the major negative impacts of climate change for humans?

To me it seems like so far so good (although I expect to get slapped down on that ;D)


And when I say negatives...I dont mean things like "ice melting"..that in itself is not a negative...i'd like to hear what the tangible consequences on our lives will be.  :beermug:
« Last Edit: April 08, 2009, 03:46:45 PM by Ryan »

Offline The_Ice

  • My band, Red Vellum Razorblades ... enjoy :D
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 650
  • RVR guitarist
    • View Profile
    • Red Vellum Razorblades
Re: What Global Warming? Canada still cold ent?
« Reply #62 on: April 08, 2009, 04:04:55 PM »
Genuine question (cuz I am not an environmentalist in the slightest) - what are the major negative impacts of climate change for humans?

To me it seems like so far so good (although I expect to get slapped down on that ;D)


And when I say negatives...I dont mean things like "ice melting"..that in itself is not a negative...i'd like to hear what the tangible consequences on our lives will be.  :beermug:

melting of polar ice resulting in increases in sea level... it is evident this is occuring in various coastal areas of the globe... someone should put up some pics of such places...  seychelles and bangladesh are good examples
some places would see drought due to increases in temperature while other's will see higher levels of precipitation due to increases in evaporation elsewhere... more precipitation in most places will mean increasing likelihood of flooding... both drought and high rainfall will result in the damage and loss of crops
melting ice caps release fresh water into the worlds oceans... since salt water and fresh water are of varying densities this will disrupt currents... currents such as the gulf stream transfer heat from the tropics to western europe... that's why for example britian which is at the same latitude as colder regions of europe is not as cold... if such a current is disrupted it will adversely affect such populations
this one may not occur but i'll state it anyway... the larger the brain the more prone it is to changes in temprature... humans having large brains can only survive for long periods where temperatures are stable and within a given range... so i guess if things get severe then u can imagine what will happen
btw there r alot more consequences anyone else can list

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21980
    • View Profile
Re: What Global Warming? Canada still cold ent?
« Reply #63 on: April 08, 2009, 04:09:54 PM »
Genuine question (cuz I am not an environmentalist in the slightest) - what are the major negative impacts of climate change for humans?

To me it seems like so far so good (although I expect to get slapped down on that ;D)


You serious??


You say "genuine question" so I will have to assume you're serious... as incredulous as I am at the question.


I will be the first to say I have no crystal ball... but regardless as to the cause (CO2 emission or not), the fact is that the Earth's average temperature is rising.  Should this continue to be the case then we can expect the following:

1.   Melting of the worlds' glaciers, meaning all that ice will convert to fresh water and enter the Earth's water systems.

2.   immediately water levels rise, drowning coastal areas all over the world
   a)   People will die
   b)   Others will be displaced as refugees
   c)   Famine likely will follow since there is less arable land now and a humanitarian crisis will ensue.

3.   Fresh water in the oceans disrupts marine life, used to the salt content of the oceans

4.   Arctic polar bears likely will become extinct since they can’t co-exist among the human population on land.

5.   Polar bears going extinct or decreasing in any significant levels will mean a huge impact on the ecology of the arctic
   a)   Ecological impacts eventually have a way of impacting human populations dependent on food (for example) and otherwise living in close proximity to animals. 
   b)    For instance polar bears no longer feed on walruses and seals whose booming population means that fish in the ocean are now threatened by over-predation by these mammals.  Humans will be impacted by lower fish production.

6.   Sudden on-rush of cold, fresh water in the oceans wreaks havoc on the world’s ocean currents, dependent on a system of cold/warm water; fresh and saline water to generate movement at and below the earth’s surface

7.   If ocean currents become affected then the Earth’s climates become affected… meaning cold areas will become even colder and there will no longer be prevailing winds from warm to colder areas (the winds are temperature driven and as such tend to mirror the ocean currents)

8.   Higher temperatures also suck moisture from the oceans
   a)   Moisture loss means that the water becomes even saltier at the surface.  This saltier water is more dense than fresher water and so will sit atop the fresh water rather than mixing, thereby impacting the current system even further
   b)   Added moisture in the air, along with higher temperatures gives rise to even bigger and even more disastrous hurricanes.  Needless to say hurricanes have been growing in size and intensity the last couple decades… one only needs to look at Andrew and Katrina.

9.   Higher temperatures also mean that the land loses moisture as well resulting in desertification in some areas, and drying up of fresh water resources (Lake Chad, for example) in others.

10.   At some point that moisture in the air has to be discharged somewhere… and likely it will be discharged in some place that either currently doesn’t receive as much rainfall as it would under this scenario… or which would be incapable of dealing with the added volume of water, giving rise to flooding.

… and that’s just off the top of my head.




Offline Blue

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
    • View Profile
Re: What Global Warming? Canada still cold ent?
« Reply #64 on: April 08, 2009, 04:16:53 PM »
Genuine question (cuz I am not an environmentalist in the slightest) - what are the major negative impacts of climate change for humans?

To me it seems like so far so good (although I expect to get slapped down on that ;D)


And when I say negatives...I dont mean things like "ice melting"..that in itself is not a negative...i'd like to hear what the tangible consequences on our lives will be.  :beermug:

melting of polar ice resulting in increases in sea level... it is evident this is occuring in various coastal areas of the globe... someone should put up some pics of such places...  seychelles and bangladesh are good examples
some places would see drought due to increases in temperature while other's will see higher levels of precipitation due to increases in evaporation elsewhere... more precipitation in most places will mean increasing likelihood of flooding... both drought and high rainfall will result in the damage and loss of crops
melting ice caps release fresh water into the worlds oceans... since salt water and fresh water are of varying densities this will disrupt currents... currents such as the gulf stream transfer heat from the tropics to western europe... that's why for example britian which is at the same latitude as colder regions of europe is not as cold... if such a current is disrupted it will adversely affect such populations
this one may not occur but i'll state it anyway... the larger the brain the more prone it is to changes in temprature... humans having large brains can only survive for long periods where temperatures are stable and within a given range... so i guess if things get severe then u can imagine what will happen
btw there r alot more consequences anyone else can list

OK, so each example in turn (really just playin Devil's advocate here):

Rising sea levels - agree that this is bad for some, but it has happened throughout history. For the most part, people can migrate (admittedly, Seychelles lookin like a lost cause).

Higher or lower rainfall - I suppose either one would have some impact on crops, but presumably where some places suffer, others benefit. And even the places that suffer may have viable alternative crops. People adapt.

Europe warmer - personally, I think this a good thing. Most people enjoy the warmer weather. I'd still like to know what the tangible negative consequences that we cant adapt to are.

Brain - sorry, lets just drop this particular example :)
« Last Edit: April 08, 2009, 04:20:34 PM by Ryan »

Offline Blue

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
    • View Profile
Re: What Global Warming? Canada still cold ent?
« Reply #65 on: April 08, 2009, 04:17:48 PM »
Genuine question (cuz I am not an environmentalist in the slightest) - what are the major negative impacts of climate change for humans?

To me it seems like so far so good (although I expect to get slapped down on that ;D)


You serious??


You say "genuine question" so I will have to assume you're serious... as incredulous as I am at the question.


I will be the first to say I have no crystal ball... but regardless as to the cause (CO2 emission or not), the fact is that the Earth's average temperature is rising.  Should this continue to be the case then we can expect the following:

1.   Melting of the worlds' glaciers, meaning all that ice will convert to fresh water and enter the Earth's water systems.

2.   immediately water levels rise, drowning coastal areas all over the world
   a)   People will die
   b)   Others will be displaced as refugees
   c)   Famine likely will follow since there is less arable land now and a humanitarian crisis will ensue.

3.   Fresh water in the oceans disrupts marine life, used to the salt content of the oceans

4.   Arctic polar bears likely will become extinct since they can’t co-exist among the human population on land.

5.   Polar bears going extinct or decreasing in any significant levels will mean a huge impact on the ecology of the arctic
   a)   Ecological impacts eventually have a way of impacting human populations dependent on food (for example) and otherwise living in close proximity to animals. 
   b)    For instance polar bears no longer feed on walruses and seals whose booming population means that fish in the ocean are now threatened by over-predation by these mammals.  Humans will be impacted by lower fish production.

6.   Sudden on-rush of cold, fresh water in the oceans wreaks havoc on the world’s ocean currents, dependent on a system of cold/warm water; fresh and saline water to generate movement at and below the earth’s surface

7.   If ocean currents become affected then the Earth’s climates become affected… meaning cold areas will become even colder and there will no longer be prevailing winds from warm to colder areas (the winds are temperature driven and as such tend to mirror the ocean currents)

8.   Higher temperatures also suck moisture from the oceans
   a)   Moisture loss means that the water becomes even saltier at the surface.  This saltier water is more dense than fresher water and so will sit atop the fresh water rather than mixing, thereby impacting the current system even further
   b)   Added moisture in the air, along with higher temperatures gives rise to even bigger and even more disastrous hurricanes.  Needless to say hurricanes have been growing in size and intensity the last couple decades… one only needs to look at Andrew and Katrina.

9.   Higher temperatures also mean that the land loses moisture as well resulting in desertification in some areas, and drying up of fresh water resources (Lake Chad, for example) in others.

10.   At some point that moisture in the air has to be discharged somewhere… and likely it will be discharged in some place that either currently doesn’t receive as much rainfall as it would under this scenario… or which would be incapable of dealing with the added volume of water, giving rise to flooding.

… and that’s just off the top of my head.





Bakes, I goin thru yuh points, I will get back to u in time  :D

One question though....doesn't Point 7 mean that we get back our glaciers?
« Last Edit: April 08, 2009, 04:20:06 PM by Ryan »

Offline ribbit

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 4294
  • T & T We Want A Goal !
    • View Profile
Re: What Global Warming? Canada still cold ent?
« Reply #66 on: April 08, 2009, 04:29:52 PM »
so far, all i seeing from the global warming advocates is premised on the assumption that humans are outside of nature. i.e. humans doh have any right to interfere with nature - we should be "sustainable" which means have 0 net impact on "the environment" - like we doh exist. level toots. there is no normal temperature. bitter have it right on. this is about management and leadership.

Offline Blue

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
    • View Profile
Re: What Global Warming? Canada still cold ent?
« Reply #67 on: April 08, 2009, 04:37:48 PM »
Genuine question (cuz I am not an environmentalist in the slightest) - what are the major negative impacts of climate change for humans?

To me it seems like so far so good (although I expect to get slapped down on that ;D)


You serious??


You say "genuine question" so I will have to assume you're serious... as incredulous as I am at the question.


I will be the first to say I have no crystal ball... but regardless as to the cause (CO2 emission or not), the fact is that the Earth's average temperature is rising.  Should this continue to be the case then we can expect the following:

1.   Melting of the worlds' glaciers, meaning all that ice will convert to fresh water and enter the Earth's water systems.
2.   immediately water levels rise, drowning coastal areas all over the world
   a)   People will die
   b)   Others will be displaced as refugees
   c)   Famine likely will follow since there is less arable land now and a humanitarian crisis will ensue.

a)I doubt anyone would die, it wouldnt be instantaneous
b) I agree, assuming they couldnt move within their own countries
c)Wouldn't melting ice caps mean more water (overall) and so less famine?

3.   Fresh water in the oceans disrupts marine life, used to the salt content of the oceans


4.   Arctic polar bears likely will become extinct since they can’t co-exist among the human population on land.
not trying to be arsy, but this of little relevance to humans
5.   Polar bears going extinct or decreasing in any significant levels will mean a huge impact on the ecology of the arctic
   a)   Ecological impacts eventually have a way of impacting human populations dependent on food (for example) and otherwise living in close proximity to animals. 
   b)    For instance polar bears no longer feed on walruses and seals whose booming population means that fish in the ocean are now threatened by over-predation by these mammals.  Humans will be impacted by lower fish production.
Wouldn't it cost less to shoot some seals than to try to prevent global warming?
6.   Sudden on-rush of cold, fresh water in the oceans wreaks havoc on the world’s ocean currents, dependent on a system of cold/warm water; fresh and saline water to generate movement at and below the earth’s surface

7.   If ocean currents become affected then the Earth’s climates become affected… meaning cold areas will become even colder and there will no longer be prevailing winds from warm to colder areas (the winds are temperature driven and as such tend to mirror the ocean currents)
How long would this take and wouldnt this result in new glaciers?
8.   Higher temperatures also suck moisture from the oceans
   a)   Moisture loss means that the water becomes even saltier at the surface.  This saltier water is more dense than fresher water and so will sit atop the fresh water rather than mixing, thereby impacting the current system even further
   b)   Added moisture in the air, along with higher temperatures gives rise to even bigger and even more disastrous hurricanes.  Needless to say hurricanes have been growing in size and intensity the last couple decades… one only needs to look at Andrew and Katrina.
I agree this is a problem

9.   Higher temperatures also mean that the land loses moisture as well resulting in desertification in some areas, and drying up of fresh water resources (Lake Chad, for example) in others.

10.   At some point that moisture in the air has to be discharged somewhere… and likely it will be discharged in some place that either currently doesn’t receive as much rainfall as it would under this scenario… or which would be incapable of dealing with the added volume of water, giving rise to flooding.

9 and 10 together...I agree these are issues, I suppose I just think they can be addressed...i guess its a question of how long changes take to occur...with enough time, people can relocate

… and that’s just off the top of my head.




:beermug:
« Last Edit: April 08, 2009, 04:39:56 PM by Ryan »

Offline The_Ice

  • My band, Red Vellum Razorblades ... enjoy :D
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 650
  • RVR guitarist
    • View Profile
    • Red Vellum Razorblades
Re: What Global Warming? Canada still cold ent?
« Reply #68 on: April 08, 2009, 04:40:35 PM »
Genuine question (cuz I am not an environmentalist in the slightest) - what are the major negative impacts of climate change for humans?

To me it seems like so far so good (although I expect to get slapped down on that ;D)


And when I say negatives...I dont mean things like "ice melting"..that in itself is not a negative...i'd like to hear what the tangible consequences on our lives will be.  :beermug:

melting of polar ice resulting in increases in sea level... it is evident this is occuring in various coastal areas of the globe... someone should put up some pics of such places...  seychelles and bangladesh are good examples
some places would see drought due to increases in temperature while other's will see higher levels of precipitation due to increases in evaporation elsewhere... more precipitation in most places will mean increasing likelihood of flooding... both drought and high rainfall will result in the damage and loss of crops
melting ice caps release fresh water into the worlds oceans... since salt water and fresh water are of varying densities this will disrupt currents... currents such as the gulf stream transfer heat from the tropics to western europe... that's why for example britian which is at the same latitude as colder regions of europe is not as cold... if such a current is disrupted it will adversely affect such populations
this one may not occur but i'll state it anyway... the larger the brain the more prone it is to changes in temprature... humans having large brains can only survive for long periods where temperatures are stable and within a given range... so i guess if things get severe then u can imagine what will happen
btw there r alot more consequences anyone else can list

OK, so each example in turn (really just playin Devil's advocate here):

Rising sea levels - agree that this is bad for some, but it has happened throughout history. For the most part, people can migrate (admittedly, Seychelles lookin like a lost cause).

Higher or lower rainfall - I suppose either one would have some impact on crops, but presumably where some places suffer, others benefit. And even the places that summer may have viable alternative crops. People adapt.

Europe warmer - personally, I think this a good thing. Most people enjoy the warmer weather. I'd still like to know what the tangible negative consequences that we cant adapt to are.

Brain - sorry, lets just drop this particular example :)

humans adapted in such times b/c the effects progressed slowly at a more natural rate... for example the transition periods between ice ages and such present warm periods happened over thousands of yrs allowing species to adapt accordingly... however global warming is an accelerated process giving little time to adapt biologically or socially... there will be alot of social loss and displacement in the millions or very likely billions... overall costs in damage will be enormous... take for example a 20ft rise in sea level affecting a state such as florida... most of florida will be underwater if that happens... dont forget not everyone can afford to migrate... bangladesh has very low terrain and a very poor population... changes in temps and thereby disruption in agriculture will adversely affect economies... one thing u didnt take to mind is that temps r not the only thing that affect what crops can be grown... take the grain belts for example... if they were thrust into a tropical climate the soil type may not allow for any other viable crops to be grown... also disruptions to grain production will be disasterous globally... btw if the likelihood of drought increases it will affect places such as northern and central africa... countries there could really do w/out additional droughts and millions in each nation will likely suffer fatally... a warmer europe may be nice for the population but consider what will happen if european glaciers melt at an increasing rate and what will happen to the ecologies in such regions w/ a "sudden" (taking into account the speed at which variations occur naturally) change in temps

Offline Blue

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
    • View Profile
Re: What Global Warming? Canada still cold ent?
« Reply #69 on: April 08, 2009, 04:43:48 PM »
Genuine question (cuz I am not an environmentalist in the slightest) - what are the major negative impacts of climate change for humans?

To me it seems like so far so good (although I expect to get slapped down on that ;D)


And when I say negatives...I dont mean things like "ice melting"..that in itself is not a negative...i'd like to hear what the tangible consequences on our lives will be.  :beermug:

melting of polar ice resulting in increases in sea level... it is evident this is occuring in various coastal areas of the globe... someone should put up some pics of such places...  seychelles and bangladesh are good examples
some places would see drought due to increases in temperature while other's will see higher levels of precipitation due to increases in evaporation elsewhere... more precipitation in most places will mean increasing likelihood of flooding... both drought and high rainfall will result in the damage and loss of crops
melting ice caps release fresh water into the worlds oceans... since salt water and fresh water are of varying densities this will disrupt currents... currents such as the gulf stream transfer heat from the tropics to western europe... that's why for example britian which is at the same latitude as colder regions of europe is not as cold... if such a current is disrupted it will adversely affect such populations
this one may not occur but i'll state it anyway... the larger the brain the more prone it is to changes in temprature... humans having large brains can only survive for long periods where temperatures are stable and within a given range... so i guess if things get severe then u can imagine what will happen
btw there r alot more consequences anyone else can list

OK, so each example in turn (really just playin Devil's advocate here):

Rising sea levels - agree that this is bad for some, but it has happened throughout history. For the most part, people can migrate (admittedly, Seychelles lookin like a lost cause).

Higher or lower rainfall - I suppose either one would have some impact on crops, but presumably where some places suffer, others benefit. And even the places that summer may have viable alternative crops. People adapt.

Europe warmer - personally, I think this a good thing. Most people enjoy the warmer weather. I'd still like to know what the tangible negative consequences that we cant adapt to are.

Brain - sorry, lets just drop this particular example :)

humans adapted in such times b/c the effects progressed slowly at a more natural rate... for example the transition periods between ice ages and such present warm periods happened over thousands of yrs allowing species to adapt accordingly... however global warming is an accelerated process giving little time to adapt biologically or socially... there will be alot of social loss and displacement in the millions or very likely billions... overall costs in damage will be enormous... take for example a 20ft rise in sea level affecting a state such as florida... most of florida will be underwater if that happens... dont forget not everyone can afford to migrate... bangladesh has very low terrain and a very poor population... changes in temps and thereby disruption in agriculture will adversely affect economies... one thing u didnt take to mind is that temps r not the only thing that affect what crops can be grown... take the grain belts for example... if they were thrust into a tropical climate the soil type may not allow for any other viable crops to be grown... also disruptions to grain production will be disasterous globally... btw if the likelihood of drought increases it will affect places such as northern and central africa... countries there could really do w/out additional droughts and millions in each nation will likely suffer fatally... a warmer europe may be nice for the population but consider what will happen if european glaciers melt at an increasing rate and what will happen to the ecologies in such regions w/ a "sudden" (taking into account the speed at which variations occur naturally) change in temps

 :beermug:

Offline The_Ice

  • My band, Red Vellum Razorblades ... enjoy :D
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 650
  • RVR guitarist
    • View Profile
    • Red Vellum Razorblades
Re: What Global Warming? Canada still cold ent?
« Reply #70 on: April 08, 2009, 04:52:16 PM »
Genuine question (cuz I am not an environmentalist in the slightest) - what are the major negative impacts of climate change for humans?

To me it seems like so far so good (although I expect to get slapped down on that ;D)


   b)    For instance polar bears no longer feed on walruses and seals whose booming population means that fish in the ocean are now threatened by over-predation by these mammals.  Humans will be impacted by lower fish production.
Wouldn't it cost less to shoot some seals than to try to prevent global warming?
7.   If ocean currents become affected then the Earth’s climates become affected… meaning cold areas will become even colder and there will no longer be prevailing winds from warm to colder areas (the winds are temperature driven and as such tend to mirror the ocean currents)
How long would this take and wouldnt this result in new glaciers?


:beermug:

no offense but u seeming a tad naive.lol.... anyways dsi... glaciers arent the most simple things... they are created under complex conditions... most are the reminants of the advanced ice caps from the previous ice age... not all cold places will become colder btw... such as the polar regions which possess a major portion of the world's ice caps... glacialisation is not a fast enough process to counteract melting polar icecaps immediately... btw the process of global warming is fairly rapid... u may not see sea levels rising significantly in a period of 3 yrs but over decades u will see increasing impacts... btw seals will be affected too  ;D  so shooting them isnt a good idea since they will probably become extinct too... global warming inherently means no food.lol

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21980
    • View Profile
Re: What Global Warming? Canada still cold ent?
« Reply #71 on: April 08, 2009, 04:53:40 PM »
so far, all i seeing from the global warming advocates is premised on the assumption that humans are outside of nature. i.e. humans doh have any right to interfere with nature - we should be "sustainable" which means have 0 net impact on "the environment" - like we doh exist. level toots. there is no normal temperature. bitter have it right on. this is about management and leadership.

Which "global warming advocates" of any consequence have you seen say that humans should have zero impact on the environment?  Everything people have been saying is about minimizing the negative impact on the environment.  As for your claim that "there is no normal temperature"?? lol... this is just too stupid.

Yeah,  you're right, there is no normal temperature... but there is a normal temperature range.  At least on Earth... I dunno where you posting from.

Offline The_Ice

  • My band, Red Vellum Razorblades ... enjoy :D
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 650
  • RVR guitarist
    • View Profile
    • Red Vellum Razorblades
Re: What Global Warming? Canada still cold ent?
« Reply #72 on: April 08, 2009, 05:00:06 PM »
so far, all i seeing from the global warming advocates is premised on the assumption that humans are outside of nature. i.e. humans doh have any right to interfere with nature - we should be "sustainable" which means have 0 net impact on "the environment" - like we doh exist. level toots. there is no normal temperature. bitter have it right on. this is about management and leadership.

whoever going that far is full of crap... ur correct there is no normal temperature but countries and major should be more responsible about the level of pollution they emit... taking global warming out of the picture there are alot of major consequences to the large volumes of air pollution being created today... okay post tho... i aint see bitter post yet but it really comes down the managment and leadership... there are cleaner solutions that should be taken into account that will better society... it is down to those in power to determine whether social responsibility as such is worth the cost.

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21980
    • View Profile
Re: What Global Warming? Canada still cold ent?
« Reply #73 on: April 08, 2009, 05:12:09 PM »
[a)I doubt anyone would die, it wouldnt be instantaneous
b) I agree, assuming they couldnt move within their own countries
c)Wouldn't melting ice caps mean more water (overall) and so less famine?


Do you think the risk of death would only be from drowning?  What would happen to sewage systems in these affected arear?  All of a sudden you have flooding corrupting potable water sources with polluted sources, giving rise to diseases such as cholera and dysentery.

Your assumption about people moving within their own country reveals more than a touch of naievety... given that entire countries may be swamped... where are all these people to go when half or whole countries are submerged?  Or are you not aware of just how much fresh water we're talking about here?  You're familiar with the size of the glaciers, right?

3.   not trying to be arsy, but this of little relevance to humans

This is a hopelessly naive statement.  You remove the top predator in any ecosystem and invariably humans are affected.  In the US, for years there was a hue and cry about wolves and coyotes... and for years they were hunted and slaughtered until the deer population began to boom and deer started become a nuisance in suburban areas because their natural predators were no longer around in significant enough numbers.  Things are slowly shifting back towards equilibrium as preservation of coyote and wolve populations along with annual gov't sponsored trimming of deer population.

Inevitably humans will be affected because the ecology is a closed system of which we are a part... it is unrealistic to think that we live in some sort of bubble where we will be insulated from any effect.

5.   Wouldn't it cost less to shoot some seals than to try to prevent global warming?

Even if this were some sort of solution... what do we do about rising global temperatures?  Continue to shoot more seals and pretend temps aren't rising?

6.   
How long would this take and wouldnt this result in new glaciers?
8.   

The ocean current pump will be shut off in a matter of days, the temperature changes would be felt soon thereafter.  Glaciers are formed only in an ice age... so unless the earth goes thru a significant enough freeze, no we won't be seeing any new glaciers.  Besides I don't think the Earth needs another ice age given how many people and animal species would die.

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21980
    • View Profile
Re: What Global Warming? Canada still cold ent?
« Reply #74 on: April 08, 2009, 05:14:19 PM »
whoever going that far is full of crap... ur correct there is no normal temperature...

How then are we able to make meterological predictions?

How are we able to say what the "average" temperature is for a given area/region?


... based on norms that have been established over time.  So yes, contrary to what you assert, there are "normal" temperatures.

Offline The_Ice

  • My band, Red Vellum Razorblades ... enjoy :D
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 650
  • RVR guitarist
    • View Profile
    • Red Vellum Razorblades
Re: What Global Warming? Canada still cold ent?
« Reply #75 on: April 08, 2009, 05:17:01 PM »
whoever going that far is full of crap... ur correct there is no normal temperature...

How then are we able to make meterological predictions?

How are we able to say what the "average" temperature is for a given area/region?


... based on norms that have been established over time.  So yes, contrary to what you assert, there are "normal" temperatures.

lol i was kind of thinking along the normal range as u put it but started going off abt something else... my bad

Offline pecan

  • Steups ...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 6855
  • Billy Goats Gruff
    • View Profile
Re: What Global Warming? Canada still cold ent?
« Reply #76 on: April 08, 2009, 06:21:10 PM »
I want to respond in more detail but I have too much work to do right now (I working 12-13 hours days) and it have a lot to respond to.

But I will.





Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

truetrini

  • Guest
Re: What Global Warming? Canada still cold ent?
« Reply #77 on: April 08, 2009, 08:36:12 PM »
hilling the atmosphere to curb global warming?  Global warming science fiction or hard science/

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=12882507&ch=4226722&src=news

interesting, especially since God will never let this world end by global warming, why worry  ...right?

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21980
    • View Profile
Re: What Global Warming? Canada still cold ent?
« Reply #78 on: April 09, 2009, 11:18:35 PM »
Thread real quiet all ah sudden...

Anyways here's an interesting article from today's NY Times... I think the bolded statements go a long way towards informing the discussion on "hypocrites" and people with "political agendas":


April 10, 2009
Dissenter on Warming Expands His Campaign
 
By LESLIE KAUFMAN

WASHINGTON — Marc Morano does not think global warming is anything to worry about, and he brags about his confrontations with those who do.

For example, Mr. Morano said he once spotted former Vice President Al Gore on an airplane returning from a climate conference in Bali. Mr. Gore was posing for photos with well-wishers, and Mr. Morano said he had asked if he, too, could have his picture taken with Mr. Gore.

He refused, Mr. Morano said.

“You attack me all the time,” Mr. Gore said, according to Mr. Morano.

“Yes, we do,” Mr. Morano said he had replied.

Mr. Gore’s office said Mr. Gore had no memory of the encounter. Mr. Morano does not care. He tells the story anyway.

As a spokesman for Senator James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, the ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, Mr. Morano was for years a ceaseless purveyor of the dissenting view on climate change, sending out a blizzard of e-mail to journalists covering the issue. Now, with Congress debating legislation to curb carbon dioxide emissions, Mr. Morano is hoping to have an even greater impact. He has left his job with Mr. Inhofe to start his own Web site, ClimateDepot.com.

The site, scheduled to debut this week, will be a “one-stop shop” for anyone following climate change, Mr. Morano says. He will post research he thinks the public should see, as well as reported video segments and ratings of environmental journalists.

Supporters see Mr. Morano as a crucial organizing force who has taken diffuse pieces of scientific research and fused them into a political battering ram.

“Before Marc, efforts to debunk global warming were scattered and disorganized,” said John Coleman, a weather broadcaster who helped found the Weather Channel and who has called global warming “a scam.”

And environmentalists and mainstream climate scientists, however much they disagree with Mr. Morano’s views, still pay attention to what he does.

Kert Davies, the research director of Greenpeace, said he would like to dismiss Mr. Morano as irrelevant, but could not.

“He is relentless pushing out misinformation,” Mr. Davies said. “In denying the urgency of the problem, he definitely slows things down on the regulatory front. Eventually, he will be held accountable, but it may be too late.”

In his work with Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Morano, whose thick build fills out his suit like a bulldog in a restraining jacket, did not hesitate to go after journalists he saw as biased. He promoted any study or statement that could be construed as cutting against the prevailing view that heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide contribute to global warming. Peter Dykstra, a former executive producer for CNN’s science, environment and technology unit, recently called him the “drum major of the denial parade.”

Mr. Morano may be best known for compiling a report listing hundreds of scientists whose work he says undermines the consensus on global warming.

But environmental advocates and bloggers say that many of those listed as scientists have no scientific credentials and that their work persuaded no one not already ideologically committed.

Mr. Morano’s new Web site is being financed by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, a nonprofit in Washington that advocates for free-market solutions to environmental issues.

Craig Rucker, a co-founder of the organization, said the committee got about a third of its money from other foundations. But Mr. Rucker would not identify them or say how much his foundation would pay Mr. Morano. (Mr. Morano says it will be more than the $134,000 he earned annually in the Senate.)

Public tax filings for 2003-7 — the last five years for which documents are available — show that the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the ExxonMobil Foundation and from foundations associated with the billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, a longtime financer of conservative causes best known for its efforts to have President Bill Clinton impeached. Mr. Rucker said Exxon had not contributed anything last year.

Mr. Morano grew up in a conservative household in Northern Virginia with an affinity for nature and animals — his basement was home to a menagerie of reptiles, including a boa constrictor.

“I used to tell people I was Republican except on the environment,” he said.

After college, Mr. Morano worked as a reporter for Rush Limbaugh, where he said he had learned the satisfactions of poking at the “liberal establishment.” He made a documentary on the Amazon rain forest, he said, because it annoyed him that celebrities like Sting could dictate what people think about the issue. They vastly exaggerated the problem of deforestation, he concluded.

He then jumped to Cyber News Service, where he was the first to publish accusations from Vietnam Swift-boat veterans that Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, then the Democratic presidential nominee, had glorified his war record. Many of the accusations later proved unfounded.

Mr. Morano is proud of his work, which he says is not advocacy but truth seeking.

“Even in the Senate, I’d put up any of the stories we did against any pablum Time or Newsweek has put out on global warming,” he said. “We’d link to the other side; we’d present their arguments. They do one-sided screeds.”

In 2007, he points out, the Republican Web site of Mr. Inhofe’s committee won an award from the independent Congressional Management Foundation.

But some scientists and environmental advocates who have made it their business to monitor Mr. Morano see his reports — the most recent was titled “More than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims” — as far from balanced.

Kevin Grandia, who manages Desmogblog.com, which describes itself as dedicated to combating misinformation on climate change, says the report is filled with so-called experts who are really weather broadcasters and others without advanced degrees.

Chris Allen, for example, the weather director for WBKO-TV in Kentucky, is listed as a meteorologist on the report, even though he has no degree in meteorology. On his Web site, Mr. Allen has written that his major objection to the idea of human-influenced climate change is that “it completely takes God out of the picture.” Mr. Allen did not respond to phone calls.

Mr. Grandia also said Mr. Morano’s report misrepresented the work of legitimate scientists. Mr. Grandia pointed to Steve Rayner, a professor at Oxford, who was mentioned for articles criticizing the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 international treaty on curbing carbon dioxide emissions.

Dr. Rayner, however, in no way disputes the existence of global warming or that human activity contributes to it, as the report implies. In e-mail messages, he said that he had asked to be removed from the Morano report and that a staff member in Mr. Inhofe’s office had promised that he would be. He called his inclusion on the list “quite outrageous.”

Asked about Dr. Rayner, Mr. Morano was unmoved. He said that he had no record of Dr. Rayner’s asking to be removed from the list and that the doctor must be “not to be remembering this clearly.”

Many scientists, Mr. Morano said, are afraid that appearing on the list will have political fallout.

And political fallout, for him, is the point.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/10/us/politics/10morano.html?hp

truetrini

  • Guest
Re: What Global Warming? Canada still cold ent?
« Reply #79 on: April 10, 2009, 12:41:09 AM »
Global Warming is ah joke..it too cold in Canada!

Offline pecan

  • Steups ...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 6855
  • Billy Goats Gruff
    • View Profile
Re: What Global Warming? Canada still cold ent?
« Reply #80 on: April 13, 2009, 02:31:54 PM »
I want to make a non-flippant post regarding Climate change and global warming.  I acknowledge that my previous posts have been flippant as they were responding to flippant comments made such as (paraphrasing): a few trinis based in Canada deny global warming and placing holocaust deniers in the same sentence as global warning deniers and calling people f**ing sheep.  Yes I took some of that personally.  Yes, I am sensitive. So sue me.

I want to clearly articulate my personal opinions and where I stand.  And yes, that will take me a few hours to properly collect the information that I have been reading but not documenting. 

Right now, I running on fumes to meet a whole bunch of April 30 deadlines for work that ultimately pays my bills.  So that is my priority right now.

My response will challenge the notion that recent trends are primarily man made and that the science is settled and if left unabated, we are heading for global catastrophic consequences.

I do not deny that the climate is in flux.  What I debate is cause and effect and the best course of action and how we spend our global resources to fix the problem.

More to come  :beermug:











Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

Offline The_Ice

  • My band, Red Vellum Razorblades ... enjoy :D
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 650
  • RVR guitarist
    • View Profile
    • Red Vellum Razorblades
Re: What Global Warming? Canada still cold ent?
« Reply #81 on: April 13, 2009, 03:02:06 PM »
Global Warming is ah joke..it too cold in Canada!

u being sacrastic right  ???

truetrini

  • Guest
Re: What Global Warming? Canada still cold ent?
« Reply #82 on: April 13, 2009, 03:15:01 PM »
Global Warming is ah joke..it too cold in Canada!

u being sacrastic right  ???

you do read all the posts in a thread right???

And Rorschach...my bad, I did not mean to call you  af**king sheep...I thought I was responding to the resident board sheep West Coast....my bad all the name changes got me confused...still doh mean I eh feel yuh f**king kicksing about Global warming!  Yes the remark about a few trinis in Canada were aimed at Ricky who made similar remarks in the past..sorry yuh feeling so sensitive dese days...must be the weather???

truetrini

  • Guest
EPA finds greenhouse gases pose a danger to health
« Reply #83 on: April 17, 2009, 10:36:52 AM »
  By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer H. Josef Hebert, Associated Press Writer   – 1 hr 8 mins ago

WASHINGTON – The Environmental Protection Agency has concluded that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases are a danger to public health and welfare. It is the first step to regulating pollution linked to climate change.

Congressional sources told The Associated Press that EPA will announce its proposed finding Friday and begin a comment period before issuing a final ruling. The EPA also will say tailpipe emissions from motor vehicles contribute to climate change. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the finding hasn't been announced.

The action was prompted by a Supreme Court ruling two years that said greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act and must be regulated if found to be a human health danger.

truetrini

  • Guest
Re: What Global Warming? Canada still cold ent?
« Reply #84 on: April 17, 2009, 10:39:56 AM »
 EPA takes first step toward climate change regs

 By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer H. Josef Hebert, Associated Press Writer   – 1 hr 8 mins ago

WASHINGTON – The Environmental Protection Agency has concluded that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases are a danger to public health and welfare, taking the first step to regulating pollution linked to climate change, The Associated Press has learned.

Such regulation would have widespread economic and social impact, from requiring more fuel efficient automobiles to limiting carbon dioxide emissions from power plants and industrial sources, changing the way the nation produces energy.   This is the reason why these bastards does always deny Global Warming...$$$$$

The EPA will announce its proposed finding Friday, triggering a 60-day comment period before issuing a final ruling, said congressional officials who have been briefed by the agency. They spoke on condition of anonymity because an announcement had not yet been made.

The EPA has concluded that the science pointing to man-made pollution as a cause of global warming is "compelling and overwhelming." The blame goes mainly to carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels.

The six greenhouse gases "pose a threat to public health and welfare," the EPA has determined. It also will say tailpipe emissions from motor vehicles contribute to climate change.

The EPA action was prompted by a Supreme Court ruling two years ago that said greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act and must be regulated if found to be a danger to human health or public welfare.

The Bush administration strongly opposed using the Clean Air Act to address climate change and stalled on producing the so-called "endangerment finding" demanded by the high court in its April 2007 ruling.

The court case, brought by Massachusetts, focused only on emissions from automobiles. But it is widely assumed that if the EPA must regulate emissions from cars and trucks, it will have no choice but to control identical pollution from power plants and industrial sources.

While the EPA clearly indicates by its action Friday that it is ready to pursue regulation under the Clean Air Act to address the threats of global warming, the agency also will say that it prefers the problem be dealt with more broadly by Congress, the officials said.

Congress is considering imposing an economy-wide cap on greenhouse gas emissions along with giving industry the ability to trade emission allowances to mitigate costs. Legislation could be considered by the House before the August congressional recess.

truetrini

  • Guest
Re: What Global Warming? Canada still cold ent?
« Reply #85 on: April 17, 2009, 10:46:24 AM »
U.S. declares warming gases are health threat
Obama administration move is aimed at prodding lawmakers to regulate
Image: Coal-fired power plant
Charlie Riedel / AP
This coal-fired power plant is one of some 600 across the United States that together provide half of the country's electricity — and much of its greenhouse gas emissions.
 View related photos
   
   
INTERACTIVE
Carbon trade game
The Obama administration wants a "cap and trade" system to curb greenhouse gases. See how that'd work and play along in a simulated market.
   
Interactive
Vital Signs of a Warming World
The science, impacts and scenarios of climate shifts
   
Slide shows
AP
   
Warming signals
View images from around the world that show signs of global warming.
To match feature CLIMATE-GREENLAND/WARMING
Reuters
   
WASHINGTON - Having received White House backing, the Environmental Protection Agency declared Friday that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are a significant threat to human health and thus will be listed as pollutants under the Clean Air Act — a policy the Bush administration rejected.

"This finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations," EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said in a statement.

The move could allow the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases, but it's more likely that the Obama administration will use the action to prod Congress to pass regulations around a system to cap and then trade emissions so that they are gradually lowered.

Indeed, the EPA emphasized that the congressional route was preferred to EPA regulation. "Both President (Barack) Obama and Administrator Jackson have repeatedly indicated their preference for comprehensive legislation to address this issue and create the framework for a clean energy economy," the EPA said in its statement.

The EPA last month sent its proposal to the White House Office of Management and Budget, which reviewed and approved it. By law, the decision includes a 60-day public comment period before being finalized.

The EPA concluded that six greenhouse gases should be considered pollutants under the 1970 Clean Air Act, which is already used to curb emissions that cause acid rain, smog and soot.

But its declaration does not spell out how or what to regulate. Instead, the EPA and lawmakers are expected to begin that discussion.

Congress is considering imposing an economy-wide cap on greenhouse gas emissions along with giving industry the ability to trade emission allowances to mitigate costs. Legislation could be considered by the House before the August congressional recess.

The chairman of the Senate Environment Committee, Sen. Barbara Feinstein, D-Calif., urged the EPA to use the Clean Air Act to start "cutting greenhouse gas emissions right now."

"However," she added, "the best and most flexible way to deal with this serious problem is to enact a market based cap and trade system, which will help us make the transition to clean energy and will bring us innovation and strong economic growth."

Potential health impacts from warming, EPA scientists said in their recommendations, include:

    * longer and more severe heat waves;
    * increased smog in some areas;
    * dangerous flooding caused by stronger storms;
    * and diseases, including malaria and dengue fever, related to flooding and warmer weather.

Jackson on Friday said curbing greenhouse gases fits in with Obama's call for "a low carbon economy" as well as lawmakers' actions toward clean energy and climate legislation. "This pollution problem has a solution," she said, "one that will create millions of green jobs and end our country’s dependence on foreign oil."

The Bush administration refused to regulate greenhouse gases as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act, even though the U.S. Supreme Court in 2007 prodded the federal government to do so.

In his first week in office, Obama directed the EPA to review a decision by the Bush administration denying California and other states the right to control auto emissions, which, along with pollution from coal-fired power plants, are a major source of greenhouse gases.

Environmentalists praised the EPA move, but urged the administration to use the Clean Air Act until Congress comes up with a plan.

The EPA should be required "to follow up with standards under the Clean Air Act, the nation's most effective environmental law, to curb carbon pollution from our cars, power plants and other industrial sources," said David Doniger, climate policy director at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Frank O'Donnell, director of Clean Air Watch, said he expected federal limits on "emissions from the biggest sources, including power plants and motor vehicles."

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other industry lobbying groups oppose using the Clean Air Act to regulate emissions.

"It will require a huge cascade of (new clean air) permits" and halt a wide array of projects, from building coal plants to highway construction, including many at the heart of economic recovery plan, Bill Kovacs, a vice president for environmental issues at the chamber, said when the EPA's recommendations were made last month.

Other critics have noted that the Clean Air Act regulates any stationary source — from a gas station to a power plant — that emits more than 250 tons of a pollutant a year. That would place thousands of smaller sources under onerous federal rules, those critics say.

Supporters of stricter regulations say the Clean Air Act could be revised to exempt smaller sources and focus on large ones like power plants.

The United States is under pressure to take some action on global warming in advance of negotiations on a new international treaty in December.

The Obama administration has vowed to step up participation, and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton even has a climate envoy.

The Bush administration refused to participate in the current treaty, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, citing a lack of participation by developing countries and harm to the U.S. economy. In the late 1990s, during the Clinton administration, the Senate balked at ratifying the agreement.

More from msnbc.com

truetrini

  • Guest
Re: What Global Warming? Canada still cold ent?
« Reply #86 on: April 24, 2009, 09:19:19 PM »
it too cold in Canada fuh dAT fairy tale global warming to be de trute!

truetrini

  • Guest
Re: What Global Warming? Canada still cold ent?
« Reply #87 on: April 30, 2009, 03:43:01 AM »
Antarctic ice nearly size of N.Y. City breaks up
Icebergs calve off after ice bridge stabilizing shelf collapsed in early April
Image: Wilkins Ice Shelf calving
ESA via AFP-Getty Images
This European Space Agency satellite image shows icebergs calving from the Wilkins Ice Shelf on the Antarctic Peninsula. An ice bridge, which effectively formed a barrier pinning back the ice, collapsed on April 5.
 View related photos
   
   
updated 11:56 a.m. ET, Wed., April 29, 2009

BERLIN - New satellite images from the European Space Agency show massive amounts of ice are breaking away from an ice shelf on the western side of the Antarctic Peninsula, researchers said Wednesday.

The Wilkins Ice Shelf had been stable for most of the last century, but began retreating in the 1990s. Researchers believe it was held in place by an ice bridge linking Charcot Island to the Antarctic mainland.

But the 127-square-mile bridge lost two large chunks last year and then shattered completely on April 5.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

"As a consequence of the collapse, the rifts, which had already featured along the northern ice front, widened and new cracks formed as the ice adjusted," the European Space Agency said in a statement Wednesday.

The first icebergs started to break away on Friday, and since then some 270 square miles of ice have already dropped into the sea, according to the satellite data. That's nearly the size of New York City and much more is expected to break off.

"There is little doubt that these changes are the result of atmospheric warming," said David Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey.

"The retreat of Wilkins Ice Shelf is the latest and the largest of its kind," he said, adding that "eight separate ice shelves along the Antarctic Peninsula have shown signs of retreat over the last few decades."

Strong warming on peninsula
Average temperatures in the Antarctic Peninsula have risen by 3.8 degrees Fahrenheit over the past 50 years — higher than the average global rise, according to studies.

The loss of ice shelves — which are ice floating on the sea and linked to the coast — does not raise sea levels significantly because the ice is floating and already mostly submerged by the ocean.

But the big worry is that their loss will allow ice sheets on land to move faster, adding extra water to the seas.

Wilkins has almost no pent-up glaciers behind it, but ice shelves further south hold back vast volumes of ice.

The Wilkins shelf, which is the size of Jamaica, lost 14 percent of its mass last year, according to scientists.

Antarctic ice shelves to break up abruptly include the Larsen A in 1995 and the Larsen B in 2002.

Breakup to continue for weeks
Over the next several weeks, scientists estimate the Wilkins shelf will lose some 1,300 square miles — a piece larger than the state of Rhode Island.

   
Archival video
  Arctic adventures
In 2006, the Tara Expedition ventured to the Arctic to research ice-melt. Watch the story as experienced by two Siberian huskies.

iCue
One researcher said, however, that it was unclear how the situation would evolve.

"We are not sure if a new stable ice front will now form between Latady Island, Petrie Ice Rises and Dorsey Island," said Angelika Humbert of Germany's Muenster University Institute of Geophysics.

But even more ice could break off "if the connection to Latady Island is lost," she said, "though we have no indication that this will happen in the near future."

In the meantime, researchers said the quality and frequency of the ESA satellite images have allowed them to analyze the Wilkins shelf breakup far more effectively than any previous event.

"For the first time, I think, we can really begin to see the processes that have brought about the demise of the ice shelf," Vaughan said.

More from msnbc.com
« Last Edit: April 30, 2009, 03:45:47 AM by Trinity Cross »

Offline pecan

  • Steups ...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 6855
  • Billy Goats Gruff
    • View Profile
Re: What Global Warming? Canada still cold ent?
« Reply #88 on: May 04, 2009, 03:44:56 PM »
April 2009 - The month from hell


OK .. I come back

Premise:  man-made green house gasses, including carbon dioxide, if not controlled or reduced, will lead to catastrophic global warming results.  Many claim that the science proving this premise has been settled and we need to implement drastic changes in order to prevent said catastrophe.


I have argued that based on comments, studies and reports on climate change, the science has not been settled.

I have previously posted a link to a site with over 30,000 signatures of scientists who signed the following petition:

“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.   There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. “

Response to this on this forum was that these were signed by people who knew nothing about climate science. Well here is one such person who signed this petition.  His name is Richard Lindzen, Ph.D. Here is his biography:

Richard Siegmund Lindzen (born February 8, 1940, Webster, Massachusetts) is a Harvard trained atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen is known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 books and scientific papers.[1] He was the lead author of Chapter 7, 'Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,' of the IPCC Third Assessment Report on climate change. He has been a critic of some anthropogenic global warming theories and the alleged political pressures on climate scientists.

Some argue that he has been paid by the oil industry.  He acknowledges that he received $10,000 in expenses in the 90’s but has not received anything since.


I do not know what the long term and sustained effects of anthropogenic  greenhouse gasses will be.
Based of dissenting views from scientists with credible experiences , I am inclined to concluded that the science has not been settled.

I maintain that the measures proposed by the proponents of global warming hysteria will significantly change our standards of living.  And I am not that much of a hypocrite to say that I do not want to change my decadent and wasteful way of life (there is sarcasm in this statement so don't jump off a cliff).

And even if man made global warming is a reality, will the results be all that catastrophic?  Who says today's temperature is the optimal temperature?

Our ancestors who lived in the ice ages may object.  When the glaciers retreated, man adapted to the changing environment.  We will again adapt.

Based on many posts in this thread, we are inundated with examples of retreating ice fields, changing landscapes, declining animal populations (even though polar bear populations are at an all time high over the last 3 decades), etc, etc.  And now, the gas we exhale with every breath is now deemed to be a health hazard.  Why don't we all commit suicide to stop this dilemma?

I remember back in the seventies, every so often we would see pictures of ice falling into the ocean.  Not unlike what is reported today.  Back then, The club of Rome published the Limits to Growth, predicting doomsday scenarios with resources running out.  Yet mankind survived this.

My point is that there is a lot we do not know.  Al Gore’s hockey stick graph has been debunked yet he his teachings are still held above reproach.  That is not good science.

So let's be moderate in what we do and try to make this world a better place to live without destroying global economies.

Let's not throw out the baby with the bath water.
Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

Offline pecan

  • Steups ...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 6855
  • Billy Goats Gruff
    • View Profile
Re: What Global Warming? Canada still cold ent?
« Reply #89 on: May 04, 2009, 03:50:45 PM »
The 2009 International Conference on Climate Change was held on March 8-10 in New York.  Yes it was primarily attended by 800 deniers.  Some may argue that they are just a front for the oil industry.
I do not know.  All I know is that there are people who dissent and for me, that suggests that the science is not settled.

Here is an excerpt from the website: http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/index.html

The IPCC concluded global temperatures may already have reached crisis proportions, and that human activity was a key driver in raising temperatures, primarily because of the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. But the 80 speakers at the Heartland conference presented a substantially different viewpoint. “The number of people registered for this event is nearly twice as many as attended the 2008 conference,” noted Heartland President Joseph Bast. “And the presenters at this year’s conference are the elite in the world among climate scientists. We will be delighted to demonstrate once again the breadth and high quality of support that the skeptical perspective on climate change enjoys.”

Headliners among the 80 presenters included:

•   Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic and of the European Union. At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, he declared, “Environmentalism and the global warming alarmism is challenging our freedom. I’m afraid that the current crisis will be misused for radically constraining the functioning of the markets and market economy all around the world.”


•   American astronaut Dr. Jack Schmitt--the last living man to walk on the moon--a geologist Ph.D. who has contended he has seen “too many of [my] colleagues lose grant funding when they haven’t gone along with the so-called political consensus that we’re in a human-caused global warming.”

•   William Gray, Colorado State University, who claims global warming alarmists have hijacked the American Meteorological Society.  William M. "Bill" Gray (born 1929) is a pioneer in the science of forecasting hurricanes.[1] In 1952 he received a B.S. degree in geography from George Washington University, and in 1959 a M.S. in meteorology from the University of Chicago, where he went on to earn a Ph.D. in geophysical sciences in 1964. Gray is Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University (CSU), and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at CSU's Department of Atmospheric Sciences. He served as a weather forecaster for the United States Air Force, and as a research assistant in the University of Chicago Department of Meteorology. He joined Colorado State University in 1961. He has been advisor of over 70 Ph.D. and M.S. students.  Gray is noted for his forecasts of Atlantic hurricane season activity. Gray pioneered the concept of "seasonal" hurricane forecasting—predicting months in advance the severity of the coming hurricane season. Gray and his team (including Christopher W. Landsea, Paul W. Mielke Jr., and Kenneth J. Berry, among others) has been issuing seasonal hurricane forecasts since 1984.[1] After the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, Gray announced that he was stepping back from the primary authorship of CSU's tropical cyclone probability forecasts, passing the role to Philip J. Klotzbach. Gray indicated that he would be devoting more time to the issue of global warming. He is a controversial figure in the global warming debate, as he does not subscribe to anthropogenic causes for global warming.

•   Richard Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, one of the world’s leading experts in dynamic meteorology, especially planetary waves.  (see above post for his creds)


•   Stephen McIntyre, primary author of Climate Audit, a blog devoted to the analysis and discussion of climate data. He is a devastating critic of the temperature record of the past 1,000 years, particularly the work of Michael E. Mann, creator of the infamous “hockey stick” graph. That graph--thoroughly discredited in scientific circles--supposedly proved that mankind is responsible for a sharp increase in greenhouse gases.

•   Arthur Robinson, curator of a global warming petition signed by more than 32,000 American scientists, including more than 10,000 with doctorate degrees, rejecting the alarmist assertion that global warming has put the Earth in crisis and is caused primarily by mankind.

•   Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Willie Wei-Hock Soon (born 1966) is an astrophysicist at the Solar and Stellar Physics Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. He is known for his views that most global warming is caused by solar variation. In addition to writing a range of technical papers on solar and stellar behavior, the physics of climate change, and an astronomy textbook for students who have no access to telescopes, Soon co-authored The Maunder Minimum and the Variable Sun–Earth Connection with Steven H. Yaskell (2004). The book treats historical and proxy records of deep climate change by examining the extended global cooling period known as the Maunder Minimum (c 1645-1715). This period is notable for a dearth of solar activity, measured today in isotopic records and corroborated by eyewitness accounts of unusual weather at the time. In 2004 Soon was awarded the "Petr Beckmann Award for courage and achievement in the defense of scientific truth" by Doctors for Disaster Preparedness. He is associated with the George C. Marshall Institute, where he co-authored Lessons and Limits of Climate History: Was 20th Century Climate Unusual with Sallie Baliunas. The pair have also written for the Fraser Institute of Canada regarding Sun-climate connections. Soon and Baliunas have generated controversy [4] because their research was funded in part by the American Petroleum Institute[5], a trade association[6]

•   Roy Spencer, University of Alabama at Huntsville, principal research scientist and team leader on NASA’s Aqua satellite.

•   Don Easterbrook, professor of geology at Western Washington University in Bellingham, Washington, who will present new data showing “the most recent global warming that began in 1977 is over, and the Earth has entered a new phase of global cooling.”


The Heartland Institute, a 25-year-old national nonpartisan think-tank based in Chicago, said all of the event’s expenses will be covered by admission fees and individual and foundation donors to Heartland. No corporate dollars or sponsorships earmarked for the event were solicited or accepted.
Co-sponsors do not pay any fee or donation to Heartland to be a co-sponsor. Heartland hasn’t received funding from either the Koch or Scaife foundations in at least a decade.

Maybe all of these people are in the employ of some nefarious group who is paying them big $$$s to keep oil alive.  If that is the case, the our country of Trinidad and Tobago better ditch its economy right now to do our part in saving this world from global warming melt down.

All i saying is that the science is not settled.






Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

 

1]; } ?>