THIS IS ALARMING!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060915/sc_nm/...ent_arctic_dc_1
Full Version: POLAR CAPS MELTING
Did you know, when Ice melts in your cup the water level doesn't rise?
Infact, it gets lower. When water freezes it expands (taking up more space), so when it melts it'll contract.
Infact, it gets lower. When water freezes it expands (taking up more space), so when it melts it'll contract.
QUOTE(HarryCaray @ 09/17/06 7:25pm) 
Did you know, when Ice melts in your cup the water level doesn't rise?
Infact, it gets lower. When water freezes it expands (taking up more space), so when it melts it'll contract.
Infact, it gets lower. When water freezes it expands (taking up more space), so when it melts it'll contract.
If I remember correctly the maximum volume for water is at 4 degrees to your point.
It's scary....'our' governments have known about this for a few years but as usual don't give a crap - seemingly mindlessly wishing that lethargy will mystically change around the situation. Friend of mind who grew up on the east coast -canada, mentioned to me how cod fish in that area have drastically shrunken in size too probably part of the crazy phenomena going on around there.... I believe complete meltdown deadline of the entire Acrtic is 50-100 years from now.
The most alarming news just came out this summer which showed WINTER arctic ice shrinking - something that hasn't ever been seen before. ABC and a lot of other publications carried that story.
Anyone see that Gore Documentary? Thinking about checking it out... suppose to be good.
QUOTE(no_help @ 09/19/06 2:34pm)
Anyone see that Gore Documentary? Thinking about checking it out... suppose to be good.
Depends, I'm 15 and this movie lost my interest since global warming is the last of my concerns. The movie is informative so i would say go see it, you may learn something. It recieves 6.5 bottles of syrup out of 10 because it lacked what i go to movies for, explosions, action, and all that jazz. Like i said, its a movie based on educating, not really thrilling. I'll leave it up to you...
I think I'll get facts from someone other than Al "I Invinted The Internet" Gore....... thanks anyway.....
Junkie
Junkie
QUOTE(Genocide Junkie @ 09/19/06 10:03pm)
I think I'll get facts from someone other than Al "I Invinted The Internet" Gore....... thanks anyway.....
Junkie
Junkie
That basic lie is as old, and false, as all the claims that there is no truth to the science behind climate change.
Not a lot different from what he actually said
"I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
Either way it was a stupid way to put it, when he's real claim to fame was he co-sponsered a bill.
It was just as stupid as the telephone tax we pay right not that was suppose to provide interent access to all schools. The "Gore Tax" as it's called by most opinions is unconstitutional as it bypasses congress who has the sole authority to tax. So Gore found a way to back door it in some FCC legislation forcing the tele-com companies to collect what amounts to forced contributions.
I've always liked that.
It's not a tax, it a "forced contribution"
"I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
Either way it was a stupid way to put it, when he's real claim to fame was he co-sponsered a bill.
It was just as stupid as the telephone tax we pay right not that was suppose to provide interent access to all schools. The "Gore Tax" as it's called by most opinions is unconstitutional as it bypasses congress who has the sole authority to tax. So Gore found a way to back door it in some FCC legislation forcing the tele-com companies to collect what amounts to forced contributions.
I've always liked that.
It's not a tax, it a "forced contribution"
To branch into thermal dynamics, which I know absolutely nothing about, the fresh water coming from the melting glaciers will slow the Gulf Stream, cooling the Atlantic and causing the glaciers to grow again. It's a natural cycle. Sure, we may be speeding it up, but man cannot control nature. Nature will maintain an equalibrium.
QUOTE(Druid @ 09/19/06 11:25pm)
Not a lot different from what he actually said
"I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
Either way it was a stupid way to put it, when he's real claim to fame was he co-sponsered a bill.
It was just as stupid as the telephone tax we pay right not that was suppose to provide interent access to all schools. The "Gore Tax" as it's called by most opinions is unconstitutional as it bypasses congress who has the sole authority to tax. So Gore found a way to back door it in some FCC legislation forcing the tele-com companies to collect what amounts to forced contributions.
I've always liked that.
It's not a tax, it a "forced contribution"
"I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
Either way it was a stupid way to put it, when he's real claim to fame was he co-sponsered a bill.
It was just as stupid as the telephone tax we pay right not that was suppose to provide interent access to all schools. The "Gore Tax" as it's called by most opinions is unconstitutional as it bypasses congress who has the sole authority to tax. So Gore found a way to back door it in some FCC legislation forcing the tele-com companies to collect what amounts to forced contributions.
I've always liked that.
It's not a tax, it a "forced contribution"
My point, and I admit it was a minor one, wasn't to address his claim, it was to address how his statement has been grossly manipulated over the years to the point now where people see the false quotation as truth.
The same can be certainly be said about claims of global climate change. The oil companies managed to counter the scientific evidence with false claims for so long, that now we still question reality.
The scientific evidence is clear and indisputable - climate change is ocurring at a dramatic rate. This is not a "natural" cycle unless you think of man's influence on climate as "natural." To state otherwise is to basically refute every reputable, peer-reviewed study that has dealt with the subject.
After a nice long day,
I am convinced that my swampy ass is melting something as well...
it gets so crazy.
I am convinced that my swampy ass is melting something as well...
it gets so crazy.
I don't agree at all.
There has been just as much scientific evidence against the idea of global warming as their has been for.
One major difference is the media has grossly overplayed the whole global warming issue.
Climate change is a cyclic as the seasons.
The 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens put more green house gases into the atmosphere than man has since the industry revolution. It's nothing but hubris to think man can change something as huge and unmoving as the climate.
I also don't put much emphasis on peer review. Just because someone can find other like minded people, doesn't make him right, which is exactly all peer review really is. I could do a little research and find 100's of failed scientific hypostases that passed peer review but were later proved to be completely wrong.
The whole basis for global warming comes from dozens of conflicting computer models used to predict the future impact of an incredible variety of factors. I'm sorry but if the best computer model can't predict with any certainty if it will rain next week, I'm not going to buy into the fact it can predict global mean temperature a 100 years from now.
There have been several studies on the Mars Ice Caps melting.
I wonder if the environmentalist are going to claim it's because to many martians are driving SUV's
There has been just as much scientific evidence against the idea of global warming as their has been for.
One major difference is the media has grossly overplayed the whole global warming issue.
Climate change is a cyclic as the seasons.
The 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens put more green house gases into the atmosphere than man has since the industry revolution. It's nothing but hubris to think man can change something as huge and unmoving as the climate.
I also don't put much emphasis on peer review. Just because someone can find other like minded people, doesn't make him right, which is exactly all peer review really is. I could do a little research and find 100's of failed scientific hypostases that passed peer review but were later proved to be completely wrong.
The whole basis for global warming comes from dozens of conflicting computer models used to predict the future impact of an incredible variety of factors. I'm sorry but if the best computer model can't predict with any certainty if it will rain next week, I'm not going to buy into the fact it can predict global mean temperature a 100 years from now.
There have been several studies on the Mars Ice Caps melting.
I wonder if the environmentalist are going to claim it's because to many martians are driving SUV's
If you look back say 10 yrs maybe a few more these same scientists were screaming that we are headed into the next ice age. It was all over Time magazine. Specials on 60 mins the whole nine yards. Given enough time and a few dollars thrown my way I can probably find some scientist to agree that the moon is in fact made of cheese. Which would be awesome as I LOVE CHEESE!!!! Either way I can't do squat about it. You can't do squat about it. So why should we care or argue about it?
Junkie
Junkie
Yay! A debate!
Global warming, now that's a tough one.
I am going to agree with Hamma on this one. It is a problem, a big one. I am actually giving a speech on this for a class next week (it's a informative speech, not a persuasive one), so as I come across more information (for both sides), I'll keep those interested posted.
Now junkie, you don't mean that
. They say we are headed into an ice age, that could be true, and the cause of this will be, anyone, anyone? GLOBAL WARMING!
Trust me it makes sense. Let's go on a journey.
I took a weather and climate class that covered this, and I have first hand experience with these climate models. CO2 creates more CO2 in a sense. The higher our green house gas levels are, the greater the increase of global temperatures. The result of this is higher plant activity, more plant activity results in greater CO2 levels (GO AHEAD, say it, I dare you). This reduces the atmospheric transmissivity. Haze, smog, that stuff. A reduction of transmissivity of nearly 2-3% can drop global temperatures 5-10 degrees (volcanoes, case in point). You know what's going to amp up these temperatures even more? Melting of polar ice caps. This exposes the actual rock underneath the poles, (like antartica), rock has much lower albedo (reflectivity) than ice or snow. The hotter it gets, the colder it will be!
Luckily the earth can recover, always will. Equilibrium! It survived a giant meteor, it can survive human activity. The problem is, WE can't survive it. So don't be tricked by people who say that the Earth will recover. It will, but the question is will we all still be alive?
Hubris is a tragic downfall there Druid, you gotta find a little irony in your statement
.
The fact of the matter is that St.Helen's did have dramatic climatic effects. Temperature drops, for example, were seen globally. 3-4 degrees isn't much, and we may not feel the effects of global warming in our life time. Still, the evidence that supports the theory is compelling enough to suggest that this simply isn't cyclical climate change (there are several "change over time" charts that will compell you to think otherwise, unfortunately, I saw them in a class, and don't remember the source).
I also don't put much emphasis on peer review. Just because someone can find other like minded people, doesn't make him right, which is exactly all peer review really is. I could do a little research and find 100's of failed scientific hypostases that passed peer review but were later proved to be completely wrong.
Peer review makes the rocking world go 'round. I put every emphasis on peer review. These theories you speak of were later found wrong because of peer review. Per 100 failed cases, there thousands of successful ones. How else would you suggest the scientific community prove/disprove theories?
Either way I can't do squat about it. You can't do squat about it. So why should we care or argue about it?
I'm a planeteer, you can be one too! There's a shit ton you can do. Buy a hybrid, walk or bike, turn off the lights when you leave a room, keep your thermostat at reasonable level. Recycle.
Most of all, don't support a president who has such extensive ties in the oil industry (just saying). But that's another day, huh?
Global warming, now that's a tough one.
I am going to agree with Hamma on this one. It is a problem, a big one. I am actually giving a speech on this for a class next week (it's a informative speech, not a persuasive one), so as I come across more information (for both sides), I'll keep those interested posted.
QUOTE(Genocide Junkie @ 09/20/06 9:53am)
If you look back say 10 yrs maybe a few more these same scientists were screaming that we are headed into the next ice age. It was all over Time magazine. Specials on 60 mins the whole nine yards. Given enough time and a few dollars thrown my way I can probably find some scientist to agree that the moon is in fact made of cheese. Which would be awesome as I LOVE CHEESE!!!! Either way I can't do squat about it. You can't do squat about it. So why should we care or argue about it?
Junkie
Junkie
Now junkie, you don't mean that
. They say we are headed into an ice age, that could be true, and the cause of this will be, anyone, anyone? GLOBAL WARMING! Trust me it makes sense. Let's go on a journey.
I took a weather and climate class that covered this, and I have first hand experience with these climate models. CO2 creates more CO2 in a sense. The higher our green house gas levels are, the greater the increase of global temperatures. The result of this is higher plant activity, more plant activity results in greater CO2 levels (GO AHEAD, say it, I dare you). This reduces the atmospheric transmissivity. Haze, smog, that stuff. A reduction of transmissivity of nearly 2-3% can drop global temperatures 5-10 degrees (volcanoes, case in point). You know what's going to amp up these temperatures even more? Melting of polar ice caps. This exposes the actual rock underneath the poles, (like antartica), rock has much lower albedo (reflectivity) than ice or snow. The hotter it gets, the colder it will be!
Luckily the earth can recover, always will. Equilibrium! It survived a giant meteor, it can survive human activity. The problem is, WE can't survive it. So don't be tricked by people who say that the Earth will recover. It will, but the question is will we all still be alive?
Hubris is a tragic downfall there Druid, you gotta find a little irony in your statement
.QUOTE(Druid @ 09/20/06 9:01am)
I don't agree at all.
There has been just as much scientific evidence against the idea of global warming as their has been for.
One major difference is the media has grossly overplayed the whole global warming issue.
Climate change is a cyclic as the seasons
There has been just as much scientific evidence against the idea of global warming as their has been for.
One major difference is the media has grossly overplayed the whole global warming issue.
Climate change is a cyclic as the seasons
The fact of the matter is that St.Helen's did have dramatic climatic effects. Temperature drops, for example, were seen globally. 3-4 degrees isn't much, and we may not feel the effects of global warming in our life time. Still, the evidence that supports the theory is compelling enough to suggest that this simply isn't cyclical climate change (there are several "change over time" charts that will compell you to think otherwise, unfortunately, I saw them in a class, and don't remember the source).
QUOTE(Druid @ 09/20/06 9:01am)
I also don't put much emphasis on peer review. Just because someone can find other like minded people, doesn't make him right, which is exactly all peer review really is. I could do a little research and find 100's of failed scientific hypostases that passed peer review but were later proved to be completely wrong.
Peer review makes the rocking world go 'round. I put every emphasis on peer review. These theories you speak of were later found wrong because of peer review. Per 100 failed cases, there thousands of successful ones. How else would you suggest the scientific community prove/disprove theories?
QUOTE(Genocide Junkie @ 09/20/06 9:53am)
Either way I can't do squat about it. You can't do squat about it. So why should we care or argue about it?
I'm a planeteer, you can be one too! There's a shit ton you can do. Buy a hybrid, walk or bike, turn off the lights when you leave a room, keep your thermostat at reasonable level. Recycle.
Most of all, don't support a president who has such extensive ties in the oil industry (just saying). But that's another day, huh?
im no advocate of gore and completely aware of the many blunders hes produced .I'm no expert on this at all but i do know if you run a car in a garage while sitting in the garage your gonna goto sleep-forever. the 1920s thru 80s were probably half of whats on the road today.between the massive gridlock traffic i deal with here in broward county (which i believed tripled in residents in 4 years) and the 300 planes that fly over my head a day make me wonder what I'm breathing.as for the environment -who knows? but I'M SEEING ALOT OF EVIDENCE. i do know that governments do hide these environmental issues for instance-do you know the ocean/beaches in south eastern Fla are not only over fished but polluted to contamination? coming from a doctor friend (who wont bring his kids to the beach) sees numerous children coming in with open wounds and countless viral infections in adults all from the beach. is it public ,no because if even half the truth came out tourism is finished for like 10 years.its already had a major hit with hurricanes!
I'm someone who believes in not waiting to see what the other guy does (leading by example)and with the land Ive bought in NC I'm already implementing solar and hydro power and seriously considering switching to a diesel engine vehicle to convert to veggie oil.a veggie car would be more of a convenience for me as i am going to put my own pump in by the garage and it'll be my personal middle finger to our tax happy government and the middle east?!! solar energy will allow me not to pay $300.00 A MONTH in electric and thats conserving.its really not as expensive as most think.veggie cars are for real,i know of 2 stations already opening in fort Lauderdale alone.it s going to be the future!
and choth ,hell of a post but WE WILL NEVER HAVE A PRESIDENT who doesnt have ties to oil and insurance comanies! they fund all politicians!
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginal...ews_on_glo.html
I'm someone who believes in not waiting to see what the other guy does (leading by example)and with the land Ive bought in NC I'm already implementing solar and hydro power and seriously considering switching to a diesel engine vehicle to convert to veggie oil.a veggie car would be more of a convenience for me as i am going to put my own pump in by the garage and it'll be my personal middle finger to our tax happy government and the middle east?!! solar energy will allow me not to pay $300.00 A MONTH in electric and thats conserving.its really not as expensive as most think.veggie cars are for real,i know of 2 stations already opening in fort Lauderdale alone.it s going to be the future!
and choth ,hell of a post but WE WILL NEVER HAVE A PRESIDENT who doesnt have ties to oil and insurance comanies! they fund all politicians!
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginal...ews_on_glo.html
My point on peer review stands true as most ( not all ) of the predictions are based not on true scientific facts or methods. In stead are based on using completely unsupported and improvable variables when they compute their global climate change models.
The "Hocky Stick Graph" that was used for years as proof not only of global warming but man's impact on it passed peer review, is now seen not only as flawed but biased to support the scientist hypothesis.
Or another example, the "Drake equation" which mathematically proves the likelihood of extraterrestrial life, has passed peer review on numerous occasions. It passed peer review not because the scientists believed in it but accepted several unsupported variables used in the equation, variables no one could possibly no such as the percentage of planets/stat that should be capable off supporting life.
Actually I'm not dismissing the possibility of global warming, I am only dismissing the fanatical environmentalist and alarmists view it's caused by man and the sky is falling. That is an incredibly simplified view but is what's accepted by the general population. Which was my point in mentioning Mt. St. Helens in one day created more green house gases than Man has in our whole history.
The "Hocky Stick Graph" that was used for years as proof not only of global warming but man's impact on it passed peer review, is now seen not only as flawed but biased to support the scientist hypothesis.
Or another example, the "Drake equation" which mathematically proves the likelihood of extraterrestrial life, has passed peer review on numerous occasions. It passed peer review not because the scientists believed in it but accepted several unsupported variables used in the equation, variables no one could possibly no such as the percentage of planets/stat that should be capable off supporting life.
Actually I'm not dismissing the possibility of global warming, I am only dismissing the fanatical environmentalist and alarmists view it's caused by man and the sky is falling. That is an incredibly simplified view but is what's accepted by the general population. Which was my point in mentioning Mt. St. Helens in one day created more green house gases than Man has in our whole history.
I guess I'm apathetic regarding all of this because I can revert to the year 1895 and it's not going to change the size of polar bear genitals in Antartica(yes this was an actual study done in regards to global warming posted on cnn.com last week). The fact is that we've changed our way of life to a point that we're not going back now. The other fact is that because there is so much money in fossil fuels and the vehicles that use them we will continue to be slaves to them. I have no doubt that what ends us on this planet (if you take out religious options) will be our own doing. Man has done it for 3000 yrs. There was a special on Discovery showing people in the desert who started irrigating their land to survive by growing crops. This same water that they diverted to grow crops eventually made the land uncultivatable due to different minerals etc. This led to them basically disappearing from historical record. We're not much different. We use what we need to make our lives better now. One day we too will have no oil to use and will have to find another option. It might be that we fight each other to the death over the last few drops. Another problem the world will begin to face as the population continues to grow is the need for fresh water. The western half of our own country already faces these problems. Not to mention Africa and the Middle East. Think we won't begin to fight when you can't get a drop to drink? We can worry ourselves to death about things we can't control and still get hit by a bus tomorrow. We'll adapt the best we can until we can't then we'll be extinct. Just like the 1000's of species before us have..... so let's kick back not worry about it and enjoy our time here without stressing about the size of a polar bear's jibblets.....
Junkie
Junkie
will man destroy itself by war or slowly?
http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/murmurs...pesticides.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=169
http://www.environmental-expert.com/magazi.../wasp/index.asp
http://www.mapcruzin.com/global_toxmaps.htm
http://www.oceanconservancy.org/site/PageS...=issues_mercury THIS IS FOR REAL!
http://www.nrdc.org/water/oceans/qttw.asp
http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/murmurs...pesticides.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=169
http://www.environmental-expert.com/magazi.../wasp/index.asp
http://www.mapcruzin.com/global_toxmaps.htm
http://www.oceanconservancy.org/site/PageS...=issues_mercury THIS IS FOR REAL!
http://www.nrdc.org/water/oceans/qttw.asp
i also found it ironic that on history channel (modern marvels)at 8pm last night they had solar,wind,hydro renewable energy.
they also had veggie cars and how to make fuels from the green in plants.this episode was like a year or two old but it was awesome.
if anyone was interested (which i doubt)you could see the episode on history channel .com.
they also had veggie cars and how to make fuels from the green in plants.this episode was like a year or two old but it was awesome.
if anyone was interested (which i doubt)you could see the episode on history channel .com.
Ice was melting thousands of years ago, if it didn't it would be an Ice Age right now.
BTW, the extra money you "save" from gas by driving a Hybrid will not exceed the amount of extra costs when buying the Hybrid.
You don't "save" at all.
BTW, the extra money you "save" from gas by driving a Hybrid will not exceed the amount of extra costs when buying the Hybrid.
You don't "save" at all.
QUOTE(HarryCaray @ 09/21/06 9:02pm)
Ice was melting thousands of years ago, if it didn't it would be an Ice Age right now.
BTW, the extra money you "save" from gas by driving a Hybrid will not exceed the amount of extra costs when buying the Hybrid.
You don't "save" at all.
BTW, the extra money you "save" from gas by driving a Hybrid will not exceed the amount of extra costs when buying the Hybrid.
You don't "save" at all.
Zing! Harry is super duper cereal!
QUOTE(HarryCaray @ 09/21/06 9:02pm)
Ice was melting thousands of years ago, if it didn't it would be an Ice Age right now.
BTW, the extra money you "save" from gas by driving a Hybrid will not exceed the amount of extra costs when buying the Hybrid.
You don't "save" at all.
UNLESS ITS A CONVERTED DIESEL HARRY! i personaly have a friend opening the first station here in fort lauderdale- IMPO ,its not about the money,although its bs 350 a gallon! BTW, the extra money you "save" from gas by driving a Hybrid will not exceed the amount of extra costs when buying the Hybrid.
You don't "save" at all.
A CONVERTED DIESEL CAN DRIVE FROM CHICAGO TO NY ON ONE TANK! price of conversion $500.
price of veggie oil -free at any mcdonalds! seriously!
QUOTE(Druid @ 09/20/06 10:40am)
My point on peer review stands true as most ( not all ) of the predictions are based not on true scientific facts or methods. In stead are based on using completely unsupported and improvable variables when they compute their global climate change models.
The "Hocky Stick Graph" that was used for years as proof not only of global warming but man's impact on it passed peer review, is now seen not only as flawed but biased to support the scientist hypothesis.
Or another example, the "Drake equation" which mathematically proves the likelihood of extraterrestrial life, has passed peer review on numerous occasions. It passed peer review not because the scientists believed in it but accepted several unsupported variables used in the equation, variables no one could possibly no such as the percentage of planets/stat that should be capable off supporting life.
Actually I'm not dismissing the possibility of global warming, I am only dismissing the fanatical environmentalist and alarmists view it's caused by man and the sky is falling. That is an incredibly simplified view but is what's accepted by the general population. Which was my point in mentioning Mt. St. Helens in one day created more green house gases than Man has in our whole history.
Off topic, but in college I took some Astronomy classes. In astonomy 2 we talked about how everything in the universe (galaxies and larger) is moving away from each other because of the big bang. The further things move from each other, the faster the are moving away from each other. Now, I pointed out to the professor that if that was true, eventually things would reach the speed of light, which is supposedly impossible. That is when the professor pointed out a variable in the equation. He explained how this variable was in the equation to make sure that it didn't break the rules of physics.
Which just makes me wonder how the equation has any validity at all. If it is a fact that the further two things are away from each other, that are always moving away from each other, and the farther away they get, the faster they are moving away from each other, than you can not just ADD a variable to make it not break laws of physics. Either it's true or it's not. Don't throw in an extra "x" because it may break a rule.
I debated for 45 minutes after class with the teacher and never came close to getting a satisfactory answer. I doesn't mean I'm smarter than him, but it has always made me feel that even he thought that it was a bs equation.
theres two scientific sides -ones says were in trouble the other says were not ,its a cycle.i ask what if we choose the wrong side?
i only think of my son,it wont effect us -maybe meowman.
i only think of my son,it wont effect us -maybe meowman.
I get a kick out of non-scientists grappling with the reliability of the scientific process and especially peer review. Perhaps I've spent too much time around scientists and my view is warped, but this isn't faith we are discussing. It is science. Science can be flawed, and it often is, but the editorial peer review process offers us the best hope of getting things right. In fact, the mistakes in scientific research have all been uncovered through scientific peer reviewed research.
Bar - your professor would never have been able to publish a paper on that subject, and he most likely would never have been accepted into the National Academy of Science. You wouldn't believe how rigorous the process is for admitting someone to the Academy. The best and brightest professor you ever had in college most likely could never make the cut. Your professor obviously had a basic misunderstanding of the structure of our universe. If "everything" in the universe is speeding away from each other, how could we have direct visual evidence of galaxies colliding? Of black holes gobbling up billions of stars? OMM can certainly speak at length about these issues and even provide you with some stunning pictures!
Undead makes a very valid point. Even if you doubt the massive volume of research that is proving that climate change is reality, what is the harm with taking steps to combat climate change? We all know where our dependence on foreign oil is taking us. What's the harm with turning out a light when you aren't using it? Of recycling? Of reducing our dependence on oil that happens to lie under a lot of people that hate us. No one has ever explained to me how that would be a bad thing!
Bar - your professor would never have been able to publish a paper on that subject, and he most likely would never have been accepted into the National Academy of Science. You wouldn't believe how rigorous the process is for admitting someone to the Academy. The best and brightest professor you ever had in college most likely could never make the cut. Your professor obviously had a basic misunderstanding of the structure of our universe. If "everything" in the universe is speeding away from each other, how could we have direct visual evidence of galaxies colliding? Of black holes gobbling up billions of stars? OMM can certainly speak at length about these issues and even provide you with some stunning pictures!
Undead makes a very valid point. Even if you doubt the massive volume of research that is proving that climate change is reality, what is the harm with taking steps to combat climate change? We all know where our dependence on foreign oil is taking us. What's the harm with turning out a light when you aren't using it? Of recycling? Of reducing our dependence on oil that happens to lie under a lot of people that hate us. No one has ever explained to me how that would be a bad thing!
your right ! the first thing i started reading about solar energy,this writer teaches to learn how to read your wattage because how can you conserve if you cant read it.i thought,oh this will be tough (from an idiots standpoint) but it wasn't .then he said see what watts your using on all light bulbs in the house,which i did and was using 60w -120v bulbs (ancient) so i listened to this guy and changed every light bulb in the house-14 light bulbs to a 15 w bulbs (cost me $21 at costco) that are guaranteed to last 8 years each and my electric bill dropped $40 a month.
it was worth my while.also anything you buy electronic wise make sure it say energy star!!
as for oil- we complain about economic growth? why not CREATE more jobs here?
it was worth my while.also anything you buy electronic wise make sure it say energy star!!
as for oil- we complain about economic growth? why not CREATE more jobs here?
I don't have any problem with conservationist or environmentalist in general, to me it's only common sense to not waste our limited resources or not try to limit unnecessary pollution.
I think that's why the whole global warming issue is such a pet peeve as it take focus off more important subjects.
This whole chicken little hysteria revolving around "global warming" to me is a farce.
Even the best projections of the alarmist puts the man-made portion of CO2 around 0.2%. This is less than their percentage of error the tempretures cited in their own predictions of global warming.
So if EVERY man-made source of C02 was stopped tomorrow, it would have less than 0.2% impact on the problem.
People need to keep this in perspective. The global warming theory ( that's what it is a theory ), is mostly based on mathematical models where they can't even backup many of their assumptions used in the model.
Even the UN IPCC Panel who is the biggest chicken hawk right now. List 12 causes of global warming, then later admits they have little scientific understanding of 6 of the 12 factors and only marginal understanding of another 4.
So we are suppose to go by their predictions when they admit, at best only understand 1/4 of the reason?
Don't forget right up to the mid 70's the overwhelming belief was we were heading into another mini ice-age.
As for the universe expanding that is 100% fact as proven by red shift.
This BTW is who the hubble telescope is named for.
The confusion comes from a difference of perspective.
GENERALLY speaking everything in the universe is moving a way from each other.
This is the basis for the big bang theory. It doesn't mean it's the only force acting on it.
The Milky Way And Andromeda galaxies are both Generally moving away from everything else but at the same time are on a collision course to take place in 3 billion years.
All a matter of perspective.
Same as you're sitting still as you read this but at the same time you are moving in at least 5 different vectors.
Spinning around on the earth axis
Rotating around the sun
The solar system is spinning inside the milky way galaxy
Our section of the milkway galaxy is spinning on an axis to it's center
While the whole time the galaxy is flying towards a collision with Andromeda in 3 billion years.
I think that's why the whole global warming issue is such a pet peeve as it take focus off more important subjects.
This whole chicken little hysteria revolving around "global warming" to me is a farce.
Even the best projections of the alarmist puts the man-made portion of CO2 around 0.2%. This is less than their percentage of error the tempretures cited in their own predictions of global warming.
So if EVERY man-made source of C02 was stopped tomorrow, it would have less than 0.2% impact on the problem.
People need to keep this in perspective. The global warming theory ( that's what it is a theory ), is mostly based on mathematical models where they can't even backup many of their assumptions used in the model.
Even the UN IPCC Panel who is the biggest chicken hawk right now. List 12 causes of global warming, then later admits they have little scientific understanding of 6 of the 12 factors and only marginal understanding of another 4.
So we are suppose to go by their predictions when they admit, at best only understand 1/4 of the reason?
Don't forget right up to the mid 70's the overwhelming belief was we were heading into another mini ice-age.
As for the universe expanding that is 100% fact as proven by red shift.
This BTW is who the hubble telescope is named for.
The confusion comes from a difference of perspective.
GENERALLY speaking everything in the universe is moving a way from each other.
This is the basis for the big bang theory. It doesn't mean it's the only force acting on it.
The Milky Way And Andromeda galaxies are both Generally moving away from everything else but at the same time are on a collision course to take place in 3 billion years.
All a matter of perspective.
Same as you're sitting still as you read this but at the same time you are moving in at least 5 different vectors.
Spinning around on the earth axis
Rotating around the sun
The solar system is spinning inside the milky way galaxy
Our section of the milkway galaxy is spinning on an axis to it's center
While the whole time the galaxy is flying towards a collision with Andromeda in 3 billion years.
QUOTE(Druid @ 09/22/06 1:13pm)
I don't have any problem with conservationist or environmentalist in general, to me it's only common sense to not waste our limited resources or not try to limit unnecessary pollution.
I think that's why the whole global warming issue is such a pet peeve as it take focus off more important subjects.
This whole chicken little hysteria revolving around "global warming" to me is a farce.
Even the best projections of the alarmist puts the man-made portion of CO2 around 0.2%. This is less than their percentage of error the tempretures cited in their own predictions of global warming.
So if EVERY man-made source of C02 was stopped tomorrow, it would have less than 0.2% impact on the problem.
People need to keep this in perspective. The global warming theory ( that's what it is a theory ), is mostly based on mathematical models where they can't even backup many of their assumptions used in the model.
Even the UN IPCC Panel who is the biggest chicken hawk right now. List 12 causes of global warming, then later admits they have little scientific understanding of 6 of the 12 factors and only marginal understanding of another 4.
So we are suppose to go by their predictions when they admit, at best only understand 1/4 of the reason?
Don't forget right up to the mid 70's the overwhelming belief was we were heading into another mini ice-age.
As for the universe expanding that is 100% fact as proven by red shift.
This BTW is who the hubble telescope is named for.
The confusion comes from a difference of perspective.
GENERALLY speaking everything in the universe is moving a way from each other.
This is the basis for the big bang theory. It doesn't mean it's the only force acting on it.
The Milky Way And Andromeda galaxies are both Generally moving away from everything else but at the same time are on a collision course to take place in 3 billion years.
All a matter of perspective.
Same as you're sitting still as you read this but at the same time you are moving in at least 5 different vectors.
Spinning around on the earth axis
Rotating around the sun
The solar system is spinning inside the milky way galaxy
Our section of the milkway galaxy is spinning on an axis to it's center
While the whole time the galaxy is flying towards a collision with Andromeda in 3 billion years.
I think that's why the whole global warming issue is such a pet peeve as it take focus off more important subjects.
This whole chicken little hysteria revolving around "global warming" to me is a farce.
Even the best projections of the alarmist puts the man-made portion of CO2 around 0.2%. This is less than their percentage of error the tempretures cited in their own predictions of global warming.
So if EVERY man-made source of C02 was stopped tomorrow, it would have less than 0.2% impact on the problem.
People need to keep this in perspective. The global warming theory ( that's what it is a theory ), is mostly based on mathematical models where they can't even backup many of their assumptions used in the model.
Even the UN IPCC Panel who is the biggest chicken hawk right now. List 12 causes of global warming, then later admits they have little scientific understanding of 6 of the 12 factors and only marginal understanding of another 4.
So we are suppose to go by their predictions when they admit, at best only understand 1/4 of the reason?
Don't forget right up to the mid 70's the overwhelming belief was we were heading into another mini ice-age.
As for the universe expanding that is 100% fact as proven by red shift.
This BTW is who the hubble telescope is named for.
The confusion comes from a difference of perspective.
GENERALLY speaking everything in the universe is moving a way from each other.
This is the basis for the big bang theory. It doesn't mean it's the only force acting on it.
The Milky Way And Andromeda galaxies are both Generally moving away from everything else but at the same time are on a collision course to take place in 3 billion years.
All a matter of perspective.
Same as you're sitting still as you read this but at the same time you are moving in at least 5 different vectors.
Spinning around on the earth axis
Rotating around the sun
The solar system is spinning inside the milky way galaxy
Our section of the milkway galaxy is spinning on an axis to it's center
While the whole time the galaxy is flying towards a collision with Andromeda in 3 billion years.
And I'm still trying to figure out how they get cheese in a can..... this is too much for my feeble little mind...
Junkie
The fact of the matter is that the US is the only country on earth where the validity of global warming is still being hotly (hotly. lol. I'm such a wit!) debated. In the US, global warming has, somehow become a political debate; the left agrees it's a problem, and the right doesn't. The belief that global warming "hysteria" is a creation of the media seems to be a peculiarly american delusion.
Among climate scientists worldwide, the validity of global warming is not being debated. There is a virtually unamimous consensus that man made global warming is a big problem. The scientific debate these days is about how bad things will get, and how fast they'll get there. Distressingly, the reccuring theme in recent years seems to be that new research reveals that warming is accelerating faster than theory predicts.
The belief that no matter what we do, mother nature will act to maintain the status quo is simply wrong. There is NO evidence to support this view. In fact, recent research suggests, scarily, that the opposite may be true.
re: raising sea levels: true, the melting of arctic ice will not raise sea levels, as that ice is floating (though it does threaten to disrupt the gulf stream). However, the ice sheets of greenland and Antarctica are also melting. These are on land, so their melting WILL raise sea levels.
Among climate scientists worldwide, the validity of global warming is not being debated. There is a virtually unamimous consensus that man made global warming is a big problem. The scientific debate these days is about how bad things will get, and how fast they'll get there. Distressingly, the reccuring theme in recent years seems to be that new research reveals that warming is accelerating faster than theory predicts.
The belief that no matter what we do, mother nature will act to maintain the status quo is simply wrong. There is NO evidence to support this view. In fact, recent research suggests, scarily, that the opposite may be true.
re: raising sea levels: true, the melting of arctic ice will not raise sea levels, as that ice is floating (though it does threaten to disrupt the gulf stream). However, the ice sheets of greenland and Antarctica are also melting. These are on land, so their melting WILL raise sea levels.
QUOTE(Druid)
There has been just as much scientific evidence against the idea of global warming as their has been for.
This is untrue. There are few peer reviewed scientific studies that refute global warming. Most research refuting global warming comes from sources that do not submit their findings to peer review.
QUOTE(Druid)
I also don't put much emphasis on peer review. Just because someone can find other like minded people, doesn't make him right, which is exactly all peer review really is. I could do a little research and find 100's of failed scientific hypostases that passed peer review but were later proved to be completely wrong.
You misunderstand the nature and purpose of peer review.
From wikipedia:
A rationale for peer review is that it is rare for an individual author or research team to spot every mistake or flaw in a complicated piece of work. This is not because deficiencies represent needles in a haystack, but because in a new and perhaps eclectic intellectual product, an opportunity for improvement may stand out only to someone with special expertise or experience. Therefore showing work to others increases the probability that weaknesses will be identified, and with advice and encouragement, fixed. The anonymity and independence of reviewers is intended to foster unvarnished criticism and discourage cronyism in funding and publication decisions.
In addition, since the reviewers are normally selected from experts in the fields discussed in the article, the process of peer review is considered critical to establishing a reliable body of research and knowledge. Scholars reading the published articles can only be expert in a limited area; they rely to some degree on the peer-review process to provide reliable and credible research which they can build upon for subsequent or related research.
Peer review is a credibility check, and is an absolutely essential part of the scientific process. If an individual or organization is unwilling to submit their findings to such a credibility check, their findings are, quite rightly, considered suspect in the scientific community.
QUOTE(Druid @ 09/22/06 2:13pm)
This whole chicken little hysteria revolving around "global warming" to me is a farce.
Even the best projections of the alarmist puts the man-made portion of CO2 around 0.2%. This is less than their percentage of error the tempretures cited in their own predictions of global warming.
So if EVERY man-made source of C02 was stopped tomorrow, it would have less than 0.2% impact on the problem.
Uh, what's your source for this info, Druid?
according to this, CO2 levels have risen 36% since the start of the industrial revolution, and continue to rise by about 0.5% per year. This rise is virtually all due to us.
good to see this post come back! i was talkin to a guy who worked for the oil companies for 30 years laying the pipe lines etc.. he said something to me that made me think a bit and now i know its all about money. as i ve said before brazil is the only country not dependent on foriegn oil as they produce fuel from sugar cane.what he told me (and i checked and hes right) was all thiis started back in the 70s when we had problems with the middle east/iran,gas lines ,jimmy carter,blah blah.all this alternative energy staring being developed such as electric cars ,solar,hydro (everything we hear about today) but as soon as they dropped the prices at the pump every one quickly forgot about alternative energy and basicly it disapeared.
except for brazil! if you go to brazil its all the same gas stations theyre shell,exxon arco etc.. so if you think,all the same companies who make/provide alternative fuels for brazil (since the 70s) provide us with oil. why not alternative fuels ? our government simply will not let it happen.
except for brazil! if you go to brazil its all the same gas stations theyre shell,exxon arco etc.. so if you think,all the same companies who make/provide alternative fuels for brazil (since the 70s) provide us with oil. why not alternative fuels ? our government simply will not let it happen.
Layin pipe! haha... Now thats a living! Whats happening is really scarey! I wish society would catch up to the reality of the situation and start making good decisions. Because of the economics of energy, any significant change must be made at a policy level. And with China anything we do won't matter much anyway cause they will use up whatever we don't.
Hard to see a way out of this one.
Hard to see a way out of this one.
I just watched a thing on TLC or Discovery where the leading expert in thes ice cores which is where lots of the warming data comes from. He said that right now we are actually in a period that is out of the norm. Meaning that we have a stable climate that has not changed much. He says the norm is constant fluctuation and that about once every 10,000 years we have a huge swing which could cause an ice age. He also said we were due for that. So no matter what we do the earth is going to be a big ball of ice in less than 10,000 yrs and we'll all kill each other over food and other necessities as we won't be able to support 10 billion people on snow cream and polar bears...... either way we're doomed to die from an ice age....
Junkie
Junkie
To futher sticky's post. NOAA (national oceanic and atmospheric adminstration) admits that CO2 levels are the highest they have EVER been and it is "largely the result of human activity".
We see indicator species migrating poleward (nearly 300 of them), and a tripling of category 4 and 5 hurricanes over the past 30 years.
I seriously believe that it is an issue.
We see indicator species migrating poleward (nearly 300 of them), and a tripling of category 4 and 5 hurricanes over the past 30 years.
I seriously believe that it is an issue.
WHAT IF HES WRONG! 
theyre goes my sons future!
theyre goes my sons future!
Vodka on the rocks for everybody....LOL Click to view attachment
QUOTE(no_help @ 10/07/06 10:44am)
Hard to see a way out of this one.
It's even worse than you think.
At the same time that fossil fuel use is raising CO2 levels and warming the planet, all the pollution generated by the fossil fuel use is acting to cool things off, as it reflects incoming solar radiation back into space. If we don't stop burning so much fossil fuels, we're screwed. However, when/if we DO stop burning them, the smog will dissapear within a few years, while the greenhouse gasses will remain for centuries at least. The result: stopping the burning of fossil fuels will cause global warming to get WORSE for a few hundred years before it starts to get better. The longer we wait before eliminating fossil fuel use, the worse this will become.
About the only certainty in all this is that our descendants will hate us for our greed and stupidity. One thing I wonder about: who will they hate more? Those that know about the problem but keep driving their SUV's anyway, or those that refuse to acknowledge global warming despite the overwhelming evidence supporting it?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.