PDA

View Full Version : Global Warming



Ed Garrett
06-12-2007, 9:24 PM
What do you woodworkers think of global warming? Is it real? Is it natural? Can we stop it? Who do you think is to blame???

Jim Becker
06-12-2007, 9:30 PM
Real. Natural cyclic, but exacerbated and accelerated by human endeavors. We may be able to mitigate some of the damage we have done to this point, but perhaps not all. There is no "who" to blame...any effect that humanity brought belongs to all of us...as does the responsibility to do what we can to reduce our impact on the climate of our planet. You and me will likely not suffer a lot of the ill effects, but future generations will.

IMHO, of course and the price was right!

Gary Keedwell
06-12-2007, 9:50 PM
So called "global warming" is nothing caused by mankind and is only one of hundreds of up and down warming and cooling cycles. xxx

Without the so-called "global warming " billions of dollars of federal grant- research money would dry up. Almost all the so-called scientists who preach this mantra collect a government financed check every week.
That is my story and I'm sticking to it!!!
Gary K.

Steven Triggs
06-12-2007, 9:56 PM
A few thoughts:

1. It is silly of us to think we have any idea where in the cycle the Earth is at the moment. We've been recording temperature for such a relatively miniscule time, whose to say that any trend we've noticed isn't just where things are at the moment. We know the earth went through major periods of heating and cooling historically, long before we were around.

2. If homo sapiens do actually play a major role in climate shifts, is that "unnatural?" We are animals, just like any others. If one day bears manage to eat all the fish in the rivers they eat from, would they sit around and blame themselves, or would they just find something else to eat?

3. Personally, I think it is arrogant for us, as insignificant an amount of time as we've been around, to think we play a significant part in Earth's development.

Anyway, my two cents, only worth about that much...

Lee DeRaud
06-12-2007, 10:18 PM
Real. Natural cyclic, but exacerbated and accelerated by human endeavors. We may be able to mitigate some of the damage we have done to this point, but perhaps not all.Exactly. That is the problem I have with the current arm-waving on the subject: I have yet to hear a convincing argument that the effect can be reversed. Everything being talked about now is intended to, at best, slow the effect down. And I'm not at all sure it's a good idea to dismantle civilization as we know it just to move the peak of the current cycle out a few hundred years.

Randy Denby
06-12-2007, 10:23 PM
Some really good replies !!
Do ya'll remember back in the 70's they were preaching that the planet was cooling off? :rolleyes:

John Hain
06-12-2007, 10:24 PM
Michael Crichton wrote a book called "State of Fear". It's a decent read about one side of the issue. Granted it's full of fictional drama, but still interesting.

I can't even fathom a comment on the issue; this subject is beyond my educational background.

Jim Becker
06-12-2007, 10:27 PM
Ok, there is a good chance to have a nice, intelligent and perhaps even spirited discussion here. That said, please keep in mind that the TOS does not allow political or religious discussion. Keep it respectful, too.

Jim
SMC Moderator

Gary Keedwell
06-12-2007, 11:24 PM
Real. Natural cyclic, but exacerbated and accelerated by human endeavors. We may be able to mitigate some of the damage we have done to this point, but perhaps not all. There is no "who" to blame...any effect that humanity brought belongs to all of us...as does the responsibility to do what we can to reduce our impact on the climate of our planet. You and me will likely not suffer a lot of the ill effects, but future generations will.

IMHO, of course and the price was right!

Jim, whether you realize it or not, your post STARTED the political ball rolling. You stated that we should do things to reduce our impact on the climate of OUR planet.
...There is no scientific evidence that mankind has any effect what so ever on this planet's climate. ( which, by the way. is not "ours")
...By the very nature of the OP's question, in this political atmosphere, it is impossible NOT to talk political, therefore this whole thread will technically be against this forum's rules.
Most people who read newspaper's, listen to the radio, and , actually watch TV at nite, will have SOME political bias, one way or the other.
Respectfully,
Gary K. ;)

Greg Cuetara
06-12-2007, 11:40 PM
John, State of Fear was a great book....I think the most important thing it brought about was to think about everything and not take what anyone saying is fact...
Think about everything...form an opinion...argue one side passionately...

notice how I say passionately...not personally

Jim thanks for the reminder, you do a great job keeping us in line and and keeping us all civil

Randy Denby
06-12-2007, 11:42 PM
My solution....send up a bunch of kitty liter to absorb the CO2 and run it thru a Bill penz cyclone. If that dont get it all, bring out the ducttape. Failing that, since the ocean is the majority offendor with chlorine, lets freeze it. I'll start gathering all the old evaporator coils to get started :D
Seriously, I'll look up the artcle I'm a bout to paraphrase and see if I can get a link to it. This article was written by a well know scientist in ASHRAE (American society of Heating Refrigeration Airconditioning engineers) His belief was basically, whats happening is natural and cyclic. What made him start investigating more tho was inside tip. Not sure if this tip was what started the global warming scare or just an opportunist to jump on the band wagon. Remember when this started? First thing to come under scrutiny was refigerants. R-12, R11, R500, R502 was banned. R-12 is monochloro diflouroethane ...Flourene/ Chlorine root cause.But these atoms are 4 times heavier than air...if anything they would go into the soil. They kept studying and researching and could not come up with a plausable reason for the scare.....Someone gave them a tip. It seems Duponts' patent was expiring on these refrigerants soon.Would they jump onn the bandwagon to condemn this refrigerant,develop new patented refrigerants to keep a monopoly? Surely not!!
oops, gotta go to bed, but will search for that article as it says it alot more eloquently than I

Jesse Thornton
06-13-2007, 2:02 AM
Here's an excerpt from an article in The Independent that I think is worth a gander.

"Deniers' Myth Number One: Scientists are divided on whether man is causing global warming. In 2004, the universally-respected journal Science studied 928 randomly selected scientific papers containing the words "global climate change". None of them - not one - disagreed with the view that global warming is being caused to a significant degree by burning fossil fuels. As Jim Baker, who was head of one of the leading scientific organisations in the US, explains, "There is a better scientific consensus on this issue than any other, with the possible exception of Newton's Law of Dynamics."

Deniers' Myth Number Two: The current warming of the world is simply part of the planet's natural cycle. After all, there were no carbon emissions when the last ice age ended - why should the current warming be due to them? There is a sliver of truth in this: natural climate change has not stopped, and it never will. But we have superimposed onto it a great blast of greenhouse gases of our own, with far stronger effect.
To understand this, you only have to grasp some basic 19th-century physics. As Professor Chris Rapley of the British Antarctic Survey explains, "There are natural greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere which trap heat on the planet, keeping the surface temperature 30 degrees warmer than it otherwise would be. Since the start of the industrial revolution, we have released lots more greenhouse gases - around 1,000 billion tonnes of them. This has enhanced the natural greenhouse effect, and trapped more heat - currently 0.6 degrees. The more greenhouse gases we add, the warmer we'll be. It's not rocket science."

Deniers' Myth Number Three: The current warming in the world is all due to changes in the energy output of the Sun. In 1991, the Danish scientists Knud Lassen and Eigil Friis-Christensen found a correlation between temperature changes on Earth from 1850 onwards and sunspot activity, which usually indicate changes in the intensity of solar radiation. As the sun warmed, we warmed.
Other scientists studied this closely, and found out that they were partly right: up to 40 per cent of the planet's warming is indeed due to solar activity. But since 1980, sunspot activity has been declining - yet temperatures down here have been soaring to the highest levels ever recorded. So while the Sun can take some of the flak, the world's scientists agree: the other 60 per cent remains with us.

Deniers' Myth Number Four: In the 1970s, scientists were warning about "global cooling" and a looming Ice Age. How can we now trust these warnings of global warming? In fact, in the 1970s two - literally two - scientists tentatively suggested that cooling could occur over millennia. To compare that meek, misreported suggestion by two people to the overwhelming scientific consensus from tens of thousands of climatologists is, I am sure you deniers can see now, dishonest.

Denier's Myth Number Five: Global warming is a religion. People have always had an innate psychological need to believe in a looming apocalypse - this is just the latest version.
Precisely the opposite is the truth. Global warming is based on very close empirical observation of the real world, and deductions based on reason. If its conclusions fall into one particular niche in intellectual history, that doesn't change the fact they are true. It is you, the deniers clinging to myths, who resemble the faithful. Far from being Galileos, you have been siding with the fossil fuel Vatican.
Last year, there was an extraordinary exchange on the BBC's Newsnight between the environmentalist George Monbiot and the global warming denier Melanie Phillips. Monbiot pointed out that virtually all the "evidence" Phillips cites stems from people funded by Exxon-Mobil, a Big Oil corporation that has dedicated tens of millions of dollars to promoting denialist myths so they can carry on pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. "Could it be," Monbiot asked, "that you are an unwitting dupe of Exxon-Mobil?" Phillips replied, "It could be, it could be. I have no idea who funds the people I read and listen to."
No idea. She had lauded Ross McKittrick, funded by Exxon, for debunking environmentalist graphs. She had lauded, as invaluable experts, Dr Roy Spencer, Dr Richard Lindzen, the Cato Institute, the Tech Central Science Foundation and the George C. Marshall Institute - every one funded by Exxon."

John Schreiber
06-13-2007, 2:22 AM
We are good at understanding things which we can see and feel. Woodworkers can feel a thousandth of an inch difference with their fingertips. Trying to use those same senses to understand small changes in temperature globally over millennia is beyond us. To observe those changes, we have to collect a lot of data and do careful analysis. The ways that data is collected and analyzed is not perfect, so even with our best work, we don't have any 100% conclusions.

The world is not dying, the world is changing. One question is how many people can live on a world with higher sea levels (less land) and higher temperatures (more desert).

It seems more than possible to me that human activities affect the climate. There are a lot of us and in just the last few hundred years, we have changed a lot about this world that we can see. We have also changed the world in ways we can't see, increased CO2 is the most relevant example.

It is possible that we could waste a lot of time and money trying to prevent or cure global warming. It is also possible that billions of people will die because we aren't doing enough now.

Be careful to examine your motives. Desire to stay in our present favored position where even the poorest of us live better than kings of the past can blind us to the facts.

Big topic. I look forward to seeing what others think

Greg Funk
06-13-2007, 2:36 AM
Personally, I agree with the viewpoint expressed by NASA's chief scientist Michael Griffin in an interview with NPR:

Do you have any doubt that this is a problem that mankind has to wrestle with?
I have no doubt that … a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change. First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown. And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take.

Steven Triggs
06-13-2007, 2:43 AM
An interesting article. This particular scientist says Mars is experiencing the same trends as Earth, indicating the cause not being related to humankind...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

Anyway, I'm not claiming I do or do not agree with the article, just thought it interesting...

Glenn Clabo
06-13-2007, 7:18 AM
...There is no scientific evidence that mankind has any effect what so ever on this planet's climate. ( which, by the way. is not "ours")Respectfully,
Gary K. ;)
I believe that the political part of this is overcoming the scientific. It isn't true that "there is no scientific evidence" but it is true that there is a difference of opinion on how to deal with it. I'm just amazed at how things can get twisted into a political debate by the anti-scientific political pundents...which people then hang their hat on.

The most respected scientific bodies have stated unequivocally that global warming is occurring, and people are causing it by burning fossil fuels (like coal, oil and natural gas) and cutting down forests. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, which in 2005 the White House called "the gold standard of objective scientific assessment," issued a joint statement with 10 other National Academies of Science saying "the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions."

Gary Keedwell
06-13-2007, 7:31 AM
The most respected scientific bodies have stated unequivocally that global warming is occurring, and people are causing it by burning fossil fuels (like coal, oil and natural gas) and cutting down forests.

That's another myth...we now have more trees then we had one hundred years ago. When I get home tonite I will find links to debunk the fossil fuel causes global warming myth.
Gary K.

Jason Roehl
06-13-2007, 7:45 AM
Thereason for global warming is that more and more people are using air conditioners. A/C systems essentially do one thing--they move heat from inside a building or vehicle to the outside. Scientists are observing global warming because they are neglecting to average in the temperatures inside buildings and cars, thus skewing their data. If everyone would just open their doors and windows at the same time, the cold air would rush out and solve global warming for the year. :D

Personally, I'm going to try to responsibly use the resources I have at my disposal (not much). Whatever the long-term consequences, I'm fairly confident that my children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and so on will have the wisdom, intelligence and ingenuity to make do with the resources in front of them, whatever they may be. Food, clothing, shelter...not much needed beyond that.

Glenn Clabo
06-13-2007, 7:50 AM
My point is not to get into an exchange of contrary or political debate. My point is...making a statement such as you have made is simply not true. The overwhelming majority of peer reviewed scientific data is contrary to that statement. I'm sure with a simple search that I could find people who are sure about many things including that "The U.S. National Academy of Sciences along with ajoint statement with 10 other National Academies of Science" is not true. I won't debate based on a few contraries...I'll try to understand the peer reviewed science...and make my judgement based on that.

Cliff Rohrabacher
06-13-2007, 8:08 AM
The solar system is heating up from the sun's activity Astronomers have concluded that the other planets are warming somewhat.

There is increased geothermal activity in that deep sea volcanoes and other events are on the up tick the child of Krakatoa is about the same size as the original was when it blew.

The Ice cores that are used to show us how the earth was made hotter by CO2 millions of years ago fail entirely to say which was first the heat or the CO2.
They also only contain elements and materials that are merely associated with warm temperatures and otherwise have no positive evidence that it was actually warm.

There is absolutely no affirmative link between Anthropogenic gases and the earth's warming - it's merely an unproven theory.

The Temperature spike the warmers allude to is LESS then one whole degree C and this is over an 80 - 100 year period. There is no real evidence that warming is even a reality to begin with.

NASA people insist that the Warmers are sampling the oceanis temperature in places where they know the water will be warmer and NASA says it has better glovbal data.

The warmer's predictions are all based entirely on flawed inadequate computer models that are simply not ever going to be able to return a true result because of too many variables which are not made available to them and a host of other reasons.

There are a few classes of people who are predisposed to find the warmer's arguments persuasive:

1.) The David Suzuki cult of scientists and their followers. Suzuki was the guy who brought us Global Cooling and has since moved on with not so much as an admission of error. These people have a unifying philosophical position that all humanity is evil and must be subordinated to the non-human aspects of the natural world - as if humans were space aliens from some trans dimensional universe who are violating this planet..

2.) Social Communists of Europe who want a one-world-government and see the power of the purse VIA energy manipulation as the device for obtaining their goal.

3.) Social Communists in general who see things like Kyopto as a supremely elegant tool by which tio transfer money and power to the poorer unsophisticated nations whose citizens have managed to miss the industrial revolution and never to have joined the technical age of the 20th century. (Welfare for everyone)




My position on Global warming and the Kyoto Treaty is that the whole thing is a boondoggle fabricated to effectuate a wealth transfer from wealthy countries to poorer ones as well as a power transfer device intended to make for a global over all authority with the power of the purse over all nations.

mark page
06-13-2007, 8:51 AM
I personally take a different approach to the subject at hand. How many years has the weather been accurately monitored--maybe 2-3 hundred years at most. How old is the earth?? Creationist maybe 4-5 thousand years, evolutionist xxx million years??? Who knows what cyclic weather intervals may exist based upon the short term monitoring of the weather. I am a "sweater" so I would rather be frozen like a popsicle than hot. I can put more clothes on easier than I can stand at a table saw or spray lacquer in my skivvies. Most public opinions do not agree with me working in my skivvies!!! "although a high school accident at the wood lathe created one once".
I would be more concerned with taking care of mother earth itself as far as trash waste is disposed of. I would guess that anything mankind has created has a biodegradable nature after so many years. Everything that has been created has been so from a combination of basic elemental substances. But how many years does it take to decompose? Take all the common things tossed away in the world as garbage and give them a decomposition rate. How long does it take a glass ashtray once buried to decompose not to look like a glass ashtray? How long does it take a plastic milk jug not to look like one? How long does it take a cemetary tombstone or marker to decompose? How long will it take before all of civilization will be living above a landfill or a burial ground????

Cliff Rohrabacher
06-13-2007, 9:35 AM
I personally take a different approach to the subject at hand. How many years has the weather been accurately monitored--maybe 2-3 hundred years at most.

About 80 years tops.



How old is the earth??

As my two year old granddaughter would say: "ODD WEWY ODD"


Who knows what cyclic weather intervals may exist based upon the short term monitoring of the weather.

And indeed there are cycles. There's a 1500 year one and several shorter ones that are well documented.



I would be more concerned with taking care of mother earth itself as far as trash waste is disposed of.

And that is the nexus between the environmentalists and the capitalists. The only way to insulate oneself from OPEC price gouging is to need less energy. The end result is conservation.


I would guess that anything mankind has created has a biodegradable nature after so many years. Everything that has been created has been so from a combination of basic elemental substances. But how many years does it take to decompose?

Some things take a very long time and a great many have the the negative subsequent result of toxic retrograde components that also take a long tome to decompose.


How long will it take before all of civilization will be living above a landfill or a burial ground????

We all are already. Have been for a long time. It all depends on how far back in time one looks, and how one thinks about the humans who came before.

Jeffrey Makiel
06-13-2007, 10:10 AM
I work for an energy research facility whose research program has a relationship to the global warming issue. Incidentally, a NOAH facility that performs climatology modeling is on the same research campus that my facility is but we are not affiliated. However, I must say, global warming is not a major driver for our energy research work anyway, and our research has been going on long before of global warming came into the spotlight.

Since I've been working here, the issue of global warming has gone thru an evolution. It now appears that the overwhelming majority of scientists agree that global warming is happening at a rate not indicative of natural trends. However, there will always be some scientists that try to prove this wrong, and this is healthy for the research community. It's the way theories are challenged and tested.

It seems that when the non-scientific community (politicians, special interest groups, the media, book sellers, magazines, websites, etc.) interpret the intellectual process, certain facts are left out or taken out of context. The result is a suspicious bias that makes one wonder if there is an ulterior motive. As a minimum, I suppose controversy is a way to make money.

Although I have more cable news channels and educational TV channels at home than I've ever had before, it seems that the acquistion of facts are at an all-time low. There seems to be too much spin and too much sensationalism these days.

Whether or not one believes global warming is real, the good news about the global warming controversy is that it may help us wean off of fossil fuels and gain energy independence. That can't be all that bad.

-Jeff :)

Jason Roehl
06-13-2007, 10:45 AM
Ok...now how about a bird-flu thread? Weren't about a quarter of us supposed to be dead from that by now? When was the last time you even heard of a news (cough, cough) story about it? I even know a few people who underwent Y2K-esque preparations last year over the whole bird-flu hype. Not that it can't happen, but...:D

Wayne Watling
06-13-2007, 11:07 AM
Obviously humans (and that includes big business - I know some would disagree with that), need to learn how to become better stewards of the earth, of that there is no doubt. We are poluting the planet like its ours to do whatever we desire and without any regard for consequences, this can easily be seen by looking at our inland rivers, parts of the ocean and shorelines and smog in big cities. This is something we can see and witness for ourselves and is obvious to anyone with even a small amount of common sense and for that I'd be willing to take responsibility and help with the clean up whether through taxes or by physically getting out there twice a year for the cleanup or whatever it takes.
What I wont accept is various groups linking that with the earths weather patterns which isn't at all obvious or proven or accepted as scientific fact and as a consequence it needs to be paid for by tax payers via various NEW taxes etc etc while at the same time creating a niche place for new organisations in this world of 'Global Warming'. This is ALL about power and money, right now there are 1000's of business opportunists preparing ways to scalp the tax payers via carbon credits and 100 other ways governments come up with to 'solve' this 'Global Warming' problem using private companies.
I'm sure the earth is much bigger and more resilient than we give it credit for, its own cycles and life are probably not so obvious to us humans who see only a sliver of its existence, and that through a very unfocused and somewhat warped lense. To be good stewards could simply mean that we all make small changes to the way we do things, this is exactly what governments can help with if they used even ounce of intelligence, I dont think we need anymore large expensive organisations to tell us what to do, personally I've had enough of that.

Wayne

Joe Melton
06-13-2007, 12:23 PM
I don't trust them scientist experts. If I want the truth, I watch Fox News down at Moe's with my buds.
Joe

Ed Falis
06-13-2007, 2:07 PM
I don't trust them scientist experts. If I want the truth, I watch Fox News down at Moe's with my buds.
Joe

Me too, Moe, er Larry, er Curley. Whoops, I mean Joe!

- Ed

New sig from Jeffrey (thanks!):

"Although I have more cable news channels and educational TV channels at home than I've ever had before, it seems that the acquistion of facts are at an all-time low. "

Jude Kingery
06-13-2007, 2:13 PM
Interesting, I think you all have a lot of good common sense about the issue not to mention the varied backgrounds to assess it thoroughly; I'd second John's opinion that Crichton's book "Fear" is an excellent read. While fiction, it does shed some interesting perspective on the marketability of fear and a gullable population for it. Interesting thread, thanks for the discussion! Jude

Gary Keedwell
06-13-2007, 3:11 PM
Well, I have another spin on this subject. The organization that monitors the air quality says that the air has gotten cleaner every years for many years. Government regulations have imposed on us, at a great expense, many many restrictions. Up untill the 70's there was no polution controls on our vehicles.
I remember going into Boston and the smell was horrendous. Go in there today and it is beautiful. Granted, it could and will get better, but to think mankind could control the weather is arrogant, at best.
Besides, the USA has pretty much cleaned up it's act. Developing countries will have to run their course too.
It is just a shame that the " Lame stream Media" has such control over the masses. The New York Times, when not giving our secrets away to the enemy, has an agenda. And what the Times does, all the liberal media outlets, follow suit.
It is just great that this relatively new media, the internet, can enter the fray. and ideas of every political persuasion, can be heard.
Gary K.

Chris Padilla
06-13-2007, 4:42 PM
Well, you can tell by the way I use my walk,
I'm a woman's man, no time to talk.
Music loud and women warm.
I've been kicked around since I was born.
And now it's all right, it's O.K.
And you may look the other way.
We can try to understand
The New York Times' effect on man.
Whether you're a brother
Or whether you're a mother,
You're stayin' alive, stayin' alive.
Feel the city breakin'
And ev'rybody shakin'
And we're stayin' alive, stayin' alive.

Sorry, couldn't resist.... :p

Cliff Rohrabacher
06-13-2007, 5:22 PM
The most respected scientific bodies have stated unequivocally that global warming is occurring, and people are causing it by burning fossil fuels (like coal, oil and natural gas) and cutting down forests.

That's another myth...we now have more trees then we had one hundred years ago. When I get home tonite I will find links to debunk the fossil fuel causes global warming myth.
Gary K.

You are correct. The actual and best description for those scientists is that unlike the vast majority of people in the physical sciences they have chosen to be highly vocal and to politicize a mere theory. These are not things that people who study the physical sciences tend to do.

Gary Keedwell
06-13-2007, 5:40 PM
Well, you can tell by the way I use my walk,
I'm a woman's man, no time to talk.
Music loud and women warm.
I've been kicked around since I was born.
And now it's all right, it's O.K.
And you may look the other way.
We can try to understand
The New York Times' effect on man.
Whether you're a brother
Or whether you're a mother,
You're stayin' alive, stayin' alive.
Feel the city breakin'
And ev'rybody shakin'
And we're stayin' alive, stayin' alive.

Sorry, couldn't resist.... :p
Just what is your point, if you indeed have one? Huh, Santa?:rolleyes:
Gary K.

John Schreiber
06-13-2007, 6:43 PM
The only people who can say if there is such a thing as global warming are those with access to the data and the ability to analyze it. Those are climate scientists. If there is a consensus among those people I find it hard to deny that global warming must be going on.

The fact that there are a few scientists who disagree with the great majority and the fact that there are many many people in industry and the media who have a vested interest in denying global warming does not change that conclusion for me.

If there is no such thing as global warming, we will waste some time and money. If there is and we do nothing about it, the consequences will be dire.

Glenn Clabo
06-13-2007, 7:03 PM
Standing O........

Glenn Clabo
06-13-2007, 7:08 PM
Ya kill me...man....

Gary Keedwell
06-13-2007, 7:09 PM
Global warming.....As I sit here shivering at around 58º, maybe a little warming is good.
Seriously, what has it risin in the last 100 years? 1/2 of 1/2 of a degree or something like that? By what percentage of that is natural cycle warming? And what percentage is the so=called "man-made" warming?
Also, is warming bad? If so, why? Also, how long before the cycle starts cooling again? Inquiring minds want to know. How old will my great, great, great, great grand-son be when the average temperature rises .00001º?
Gary K.

Jim Becker
06-13-2007, 8:28 PM
Seriously, what has it risin in the last 100 years? 1/2 of 1/2 of a degree or something like that?


A little more than that -- .76ºC. And to you and me, a couple degrees F doesn't seem like much, but even small variations can have great cause and effect over the global environment and species populations. Of further concern is the the acceleration now being predicted.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/07/128&format=HTML&aged=0)

"

During the last 100 years the Earth has warmed by 0.76°C on average, and the rate of warming has further increased. The 11 warmest years on record have all occurred in the last 12 years. The second half of the 20th century was the warmest period in the northern hemisphere for at least 1,300 years. Europe has warmed by about 1°C over the past 100 years, faster than the global average.
Based on scenarios that assume no further action is taken to limit emissions, the best estimates of the projected further rise in the global average temperature by 2100 range from 1.8 to 4.0°C[1] The full uncertainty range for projected global warming this century is 1.1-6.4°C .
"

Obviously, this is just one report. Issued February 2007.

Glen Gunderson
06-13-2007, 8:50 PM
Global warming.....As I sit here shivering at around 58º, maybe a little warming is good.
Seriously, what has it risin in the last 100 years? 1/2 of 1/2 of a degree or something like that? By what percentage of that is natural cycle warming? And what percentage is the so=called "man-made" warming?
Also, is warming bad? If so, why? Also, how long before the cycle starts cooling again? Inquiring minds want to know. How old will my great, great, great, great grand-son be when the average temperature rises .00001º?
Gary K.



It has risen over 1 degree Fahrenheit in the last century. The rise in temperature itself, isn't necessarily the problem. Of course, a couple of degrees isn't going to make the earth inhabitable, and it will likely even make some parts of the world more habitable.

The problem lies in the corollary effects of this temperature rise. One of the most important of these is sea levels. For instance, 125,000 years ago it was around 1-2 degrees hotter than it is now. However, sea level was also around 15-25 feet higher than it is now. There are other examples of warm periods with much higher sea levels. 3,000,000 years ago average temperatures were estimated to be 2-3 degrees higher than they are now and sea level was 75 feet above what it is now. That would inundate many of the earth's major cities and remove tons of arable land, possibly leading to refugee crises and famine.

Humankind survived past major temperature fluctuations because there were very few of us and we were fairly mobile. If sea levels rose, there was plenty of room inland. If there was a regional ice age, people would migrate. With the amount of people on the Earth and the permanent nature of our physical surroundings, this is simply no longer possible, and even a rise of a few meters in the sea level could drastically alter life on our planet.

Honestly, I hope the scientists are wrong. I hope it's a false alarm and the life on earth will not be drastically changed for the people in the future.
I hope sea levels don't rise and completely submerge some of the most populous and valuable areas of the world. However, I also hope my house won't burn down, or I won't get in a car accident. But that doesn't mean I ignore them. I take actions to prevent those things and I think that we should begin to take action to stem the trend of global warming through conservation. If it turns out the scientists were wrong, we would still have at least saved some of our precious resources for the future rather than burning them up for frivolous things such as larger cars and convenience.

Jeffrey Makiel
06-13-2007, 9:11 PM
The only people who can say if there is such a thing as global warming are those with access to the data and the ability to analyze it. Those are climate scientists. If there is a consensus among those people I find it hard to deny that global warming must be going on.

I attended a colloquium about 4 years ago and the speaker was a climate scientist from NOAH's weather research lab. It was very interesting and informative. He did not come across as a sensationalist or a demagogue. But rather, he appeared as a very intelligent and well educated man. At least, that was my feeling.

He showed a lot of historical statistics that NOAH has gathered over the century and discussed the climate modeling that they perform. He also talked about similar work that is going on around the world at government institutions and universities. The outcomes varied between the different models that he discussed, but they all concluded the same effect. Not only do they trend carbon dioxide emission, they also determine how the earth would change. It was interesting to note that some areas of the world, including areas in the US, will become colder due to changing ocean currents. They also forecasted more extreme weather events which span from excessive precipitation to drought.

He also spoke of natural climate changes. However, it appears that natural significant changes are measured in thousands of years, not tens of years as they are seeing. The current and anticipated changes in the climate and their effect are not as simplistic to see or measure as either side of the media argue it as.

His work, and the work of his fellow colleagues, was fairly convincing to me. I did not sense that he had a hidden agenda nor did he spark my paranoia that I developed from using Craftsmen power tools. He had a tough audience too. They were comprised of mathematicians, engineers and PHD physicists…all folks that tend to need a lot of information when confronted with theoretical models. However, I doubt I will ever see him or anyone like him on TV.

Well. Gotta go. It's time for my hourly update on Paris Hilton's incarceration and Britanny Spears' bald head.

-Jeff :)

Ken Garlock
06-13-2007, 9:25 PM
Interesting reading, this thread.

A couple thoughts:

1) A thousand scientists having a consensus does NOT make a scientific law.

2) A Danish researcher has shown that WARMING happens BEFORE increases in CO2 levels. Simply stated CO2 doesn't cause warming; warming caused increased CO2.

3) Galileo and Copernicus were persecuted for going against the consensus that the earth was the center of the universe.

4) Prior to Columbus, the consensus was that the world was flat.

5) Until recently, the consensus of medical doctors was that ulcers were caused by stomach acid. An Australian doctor proved that it was bacteria.

6) A greater problem is the total lack preparation for the eventual eruption of the 30 mile diameter Yellowstone volcano.

Conclusion, a consensus of smart/educated people does not make a fact. It is just another opinion, and we all know what opinions are like.

Personally, I have come to think that as a group of sentient beings, we can do little to impact the natural cycles of the earth and sun. We are arrogant to suggest that we have such power.

Beware of the phrase "Everybody knows that."

Art Mulder
06-13-2007, 9:32 PM
Here is a link to a talk by John Doerr (http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/128) at the 2007 TED conference.
(A big silicon valley Venture Capitalist who was convicted by his daughter on the issue of climate change, and started doing his own investigations, in terms of green technology and the like. I found it to be a very interesting talk.)

No, I have not seen "An Inconvenient Truth", however I have read the book. It's an easy ready, with lots of well-explained photos, stats, and graphs. I encourage anyone who is interested in the issue to get a copy and read it. I find it to be very persuasive.

So to address the original question... Yes I believe it is a big problem. Yes, I believe that humanity has, and is still having, a big impact.



A We've been recording temperature for such a relatively miniscule time, whose to say that any trend we've noticed isn't just where things are at the moment.


How many years has the weather been accurately monitored--maybe 2-3 hundred years at most.

Errr, guys, this is why scientists study the arctic and antarctic and take ice cores and so on. So that they can gather data for a far longer time period.



I remember going into Boston and the smell was horrendous. Go in there today and it is beautiful. Granted, it could and will get better, but to think mankind could control the weather is arrogant, at best.
Besides, the USA has pretty much cleaned up it's act. Developing countries will have to run their course too.


Two words: Smog Alert. We have those all the time in Southern Ontario the past 8 years that I've lived here. And the smog comes from Ohio and Michigan. Weather is no respecter of borders. Water is no respecter of borders either. It all runs down to the Oceans.

Remember Chernobyl? At the time I had a buddy who was attending University in Seattle studying physics. They could monitor the outdoor "background" radiation and detect the impact of Chernobyl, thousands of miles away.

I remember reading a Science Fiction story years ago where the author suggested that all cities in the USA should be forced to have their sewer outlets dump out UPSTREAM of where their fresh drinking water intakes are located. That would force these people to be really sure that they were not polluting. Just a story, sure, but I think it illustrates the point that it is far too easy to say that something is someone else's problem.

Jeffrey Makiel
06-13-2007, 9:42 PM
Personally, I have come to think that as a group of sentient beings, we can do little to impact the natural cycles of the earth and sun. We are arrogant to suggest that we have such power.

Oh, I dunno. A good ol' fashion nuclear exchange may make skiing possible in Florida. However, I understand that only the cockroaches may enjoy it.

-Jeff :)

Glen Gunderson
06-13-2007, 9:54 PM
Interesting reading, this thread.

A couple thoughts:

1) A thousand scientists having a consensus does NOT make a scientific law.



You're certainly right. But in a situation such as this, how long are you going to wait for a scientific laws to be established to your satisfaction.



2) A Danish researcher has shown that WARMING happens BEFORE increases in CO2 levels. Simply stated CO2 doesn't cause warming; warming caused increased CO2.

That sounds suspiciously concrete. If thousands of scientists having a consensus doesn't start to convince you, why do you take a single scientist's findings as gospel? Perhaps he is wrong?

Besides, no one suggests that all warming was caused by CO2. If I understand the theory correctly, it is that C02 amplifies the warming trend. In a sense you're right, warming causes increased C02 levels from the ocean, but in turn, these extra C02 emissions have a greenhouse effect on the atmosphere and lead to even higher temperatures. C02 and temperature and interelated, and no climatologist worth his salt would ever suggest that one causes the other. That is simply too simplistic. What they do suggest, however, is that the vast amounts of historically dormant C02 we have put into the atmosphere through fossil fuels has seriously upset the natural balance that had occurred for millions of years.




3) Galileo and Copernicus were persecuted for going against the consensus that the earth was the center of the universe.

4) Prior to Columbus, the consensus was that the world was flat.
All of these people disproved dogmatic beliefs. One could just as easily argue that that is what is going on now. I would imagine there were many people who strongly resisted the notion that the Earth was not the center of the universe and the it was not round and came up with all kinds of reasons to doubt the new science. Eventually the new science prevailed and peoples' opinions changed. Denying climate change is not analogous to coming up with a new scientific theory and then proving it. In fact, I'd say you've got it backwards. Who knows, in a few hundred years, global warming deniers may be seen in the same light as the Catholic Church of Galileo's time. This is not to say that this is necessarily the case, but your example can just as easily be turned against you.




5) Until recently, the consensus of medical doctors was that ulcers were caused by stomach acid. An Australian doctor proved that it was bacteria.

So because a consensus was wrong, you won't believe future consensus? Newton was wrong about a few things, perhaps we ought to throw out his other stuff while we're at it.




Personally, I have come to think that as a group of sentient beings, we can do little to impact the natural cycles of the earth and sun. We are arrogant to suggest that we have such power.
This has been mentioned a few times in this thread and it's absurd. What if there was a world wide nuclear war. Would that not upset some of the earth's natural processes? What if we cut down every single tree on earth?

Temperature change on earth is not caused only by the sun. There are many other facts at play, most notably our atmosphere. The theory of global warming suggests that we are affecting our atmosphere, which in turn affects the temperature. It has nothing to do with affecting the sun's relationship with the Earth.

Steven Triggs
06-13-2007, 10:04 PM
Errr, guys, this is why scientists study the arctic and antarctic and take ice cores and so on. So that they can gather data for a far longer time period.


I believe the furthest back they've been able to research with ice cores is currently around 720,000 years. Given that the earth is generally accepted to be about 4.55 billion years old, this only represents .016% of the Earth's history. Also, in this very limited amount of time, there have apparently been 8 glacial cycles.

Jeffrey Makiel
06-13-2007, 10:11 PM
Remember Chernobyl? At the time I had a buddy who was attending University in Seattle studying physics. They could monitor the outdoor "background" radiation and detect the impact of Chernobyl, thousands of miles away.

At my workplace in New Jersey, we monitor background environmental radiation also. I remember the health physics folks telling me that they saw a jump in background radiation. I think it was tritium, an isotope of hydrogen.

An interesting situation about the wildlife around Chernobyl is that it is flourishing without defect. Even the birds which are nesting on the concrete tomb over the reactor core are doing well. However, the majority of children born in that region are showing terrible disease. One condition of note was a hole in the heart which is called the "Chernobyl heart". It was inspiring to see volunteer surgical teams from the USA go to that region to perform corrective heart surgery. They would literally line the children up and the team would go to work fixing their hearts one after another during the team's stay. And...talk about the gratitude of the parents! Wow!

-Jeff :)

John Schreiber
06-13-2007, 10:12 PM
Interesting reading, this thread.

A couple thoughts:

1) A thousand scientists having a consensus does NOT make a scientific law. Absolutely right. In fact, in science laws only apply to the most basic observable relationships. There are only theories. Some theories have extremely strong support. Gravity is one of those theories which seems to hold up very well under local conditions. Global warming looks to be supported, but scientists won't call it a conclusive theory until after it has happened a few times.

2) A Danish researcher has shown that WARMING happens BEFORE increases in CO2 levels. Simply stated CO2 doesn't cause warming; warming caused increased CO2.That's another theory. I'm not qualified to evaluate it. I will be curious to see if this researcher's conclusions are supported by others and become part of the consensus.

3) Galileo and Copernicus were persecuted for going against the consensus that the earth was the center of the universe.

4) Prior to Columbus, the consensus was that the world was flat. They laughed at Galileo and Copernicus and Columbus, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. You are right that popular opinion does not answer scientific questions. (Actually most educated people recognized that the earth was spherical since roman times.)


5) Until recently, the consensus of medical doctors was that ulcers were caused by stomach acid. An Australian doctor proved that it was bacteria. Science was wrong and new data came along and a new theory was developed. That's a great example of how science works. In the same way scientists are now seeing data has lead to the theory of global warming.


6) A greater problem is the total lack preparation for the eventual eruption of the 30 mile diameter Yellowstone volcano.You could be right.


Conclusion, a consensus of smart/educated people does not make a fact. It is just another opinion, and we all know what opinions are like.These are NOT opinions. These are scientific theories subject to testing and evaluation. Right now, the theory which best explains the available data is that humans are doing things which are increasing the average temperature on the planet.


Personally, I have come to think that as a group of sentient beings, we can do little to impact the natural cycles of the earth and sun. We are arrogant to suggest that we have such power.Why do you think that?


Beware of the phrase "Everybody knows that."Agreed.

And Ken, I promise that I agree and disagree with you respectfully and am open to persuasion and new information.

Art Mulder
06-13-2007, 10:25 PM
This has been mentioned a few times in this thread and it's absurd. What if there was a world wide nuclear war. Would that not upset some of the earth's natural processes? What if we cut down every single tree on earth?

I agree, Glen, and your mention of trees reminded me that we already have in history a similar situation. I'm speaking of Easter Island.

From Wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Island#Destruction_of_society_and_populatio n)
"The first European contact with the island began on 5 April (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_5) 1722 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1722) (which was Easter Sunday (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter)) when Dutch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands) navigator Jacob Roggeveen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Roggeveen) found 2,000 to 3,000 inhabitants on the island, although the population may have been as high as 10,000 to 15,000 only a century or two earlier. The civilization of Easter Island was long believed to have degenerated drastically during the century before the arrival of the Dutch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands), as a result of overpopulation, deforestation and exploitation of an extremely isolated island with limited natural resources."

John Schreiber
06-13-2007, 10:26 PM
this only represents .016% of the Earth's history. Also, in this very limited amount of time, there have apparently been 8 glacial cycles.Clearly we can learn a lot from 72,000 years worth of data which includes eight glacial cycles. Of course, it's not conclusive. If we wait another hundred years, we might have much stronger data, but it would be unfortunate if half of the world's population is killed off because we waited for better data.

Steven Triggs
06-13-2007, 10:43 PM
Clearly we can learn a lot from 720,000 years worth of data which includes eight glacial cycles. Of course, it's not conclusive. If we wait another hundred years, we might have much stronger data, but it would be unfortunate if half of the world's population is killed off because we waited for better data.

My point was that if in such a limited portion of Earth's history there have been 8 glacial cycles, it isn't hard to believe that changes we are seeing now might be normal, as opposed to something caused by humanity. There are plenty of scientists who argue it is caused by us, and there are plenty who argue it isn't.

There are basically three choices (as far as what we believe); we can beleive the scientists who say humanity is the cause, we can believe the scientists who say this is normal, or we can be realistic and accept that we don't really know.

Personally, I tend towards thinking that the issue of global warming is highly inflated. However, I accept that I don't really know.

The reality is, though, that I do "ecologically sound" things for other reasons. The two "daily drivers" in my household get 40 and 36 mpg. This really is just to save us money at the pump. And we did this long before gas was $3.00 a gallon.

We run compact flourescents in most of the lights in our house. We do this for two reasons. I like having a reasonable electric bill, and I think they are cool.

We don't leave lights on in rooms we aren't using. This isn't a conscious choice to save energy, this is simply that my parents taught me not to waste things. Seems pointless to consume something if you aren't benefiting from it.

Anyway, the point of my long ramble is simply this: Just because someone isn't particularly concerned about global warming doesn't mean they are irresponsible with usage of resources.

Wayne Watling
06-13-2007, 10:56 PM
If we wait another hundred years, we might have much stronger data, but it would be unfortunate if half of the world's population is killed off because we waited for better data.


Under those circumstance I think most reasonable and fair thinking folk would agree with this approach and err on the side of caution if there wasn't so much cash to be made from the $Global Warming scheme.
Alot of folk are changing their ways and doing their bit in small but real ways at the curbside, its just the big dollars (think oil sands in northern Canada as an example) are just too much to give up for those who stand to benefit (which includes those in government who are about to start taxing us to death to help fix the Global Warming issue). If we put a stop to mining oil sands tomorrow the % CO2 emissions produced by Canada would drop significantly. If there is so much at risk why don't they just do it and deal with the consequences later before its too late ? :)

One correction: that should read: taxing us into oblivion. We are already being taxed to death.

Gary Keedwell
06-13-2007, 11:23 PM
Oh, the sky is falling.....the sky is falling...the sky is falling. All us little guys are gonna do our little thing and save the earth. All the big guys with their 6000 sq. ft. mansions, monster SUV's, carbon credits, and fuel guzzling jets to fly around the world to tell us how to save the earth.

So called "scientists" who do what? Get paid by who? To say what?:cool: Fancy instruments that measure what? Fancy instruments that are paid for by who? Fancy instruments that are read by who,,who get paid by whom? Wow, were ALL gonna save the earth and feel good about ourselves.
Cavemen said those big dinosaurs sure do huge piles of dung. Huge piles of dung... not good for air. Caveman said dinosaurs heat up earth with.........
The more things change...the more they stay the same...
I'm going to Moe's......:p

Gary K.

Randy Denby
06-13-2007, 11:42 PM
Oh, the sky is falling.....the sky is falling...the sky is falling. All us little guys are gonna do our little thing and save the earth. All the big guys with their 6000 sq. ft. mansions, monster SUV's, carbon credits, and fuel guzzling jets to fly around the world to tell us how to save the earth.

So called "scientists" who do what? Get paid by who? To say what?:cool: Fancy instruments that measure what? Fancy instruments that are paid for by who? Fancy instruments that are read by who,,who get paid by whom? Wow, were ALL gonna save the earth and feel good about ourselves.
Cavemen said those big dinosaurs sure do huge piles of dung. Huge piles of dung... not good for air. Caveman said dinosaurs heat up earth with.........
The more things change...the more they stay the same...
I'm going to Moe's......:p

Gary K.

LOL ! .....this was funny. , And it does make a pretty good point as well.One, divert your gaze to this, so we can blind side you with our true agenda. Total control of what you can do, say, or feel. I , as you can see am skeptical. Maybe too much.
. two. ..Alot of these scientists are working at/ for universities , which for the most part, are usually considered liberal. And this it seems to me to be a liberal.agenda. But I am definitely biased in my disdain for most of these tree hugger , econonazis, greenpeace organizations . Not for the idea of what they proclaim, but in their tactics, extremism, and hippocritical ways.

Dont jump on me....I can see both sides of the argument. Maybe the answer lies somewhere in between?
I have to admit more...I also believe we are not or never will be in total control of the planet . I'll leave it at that.

Art Mulder
06-14-2007, 7:10 AM
Folks,

Let me say that I have found this to be an interesting and illuminating discussion. I work at a university surrounded by (medical) scientists, so it is rare that I see or participate in a discussion like this with a bunch of just "regular" folks.

(though to be sure, I don't think SMC is exactly a random cross section of the populace.)

I've tried to be careful in my posts, so I hope I have not offended anyone.

In particular, I have appreciated the informed and detailed comments from Jeff Makiel. It is great to hear from people who have in their own experience, come across real data on this topic.

Gary Keedwell
06-14-2007, 7:45 AM
Folks,

Let me say that I have found this to be an interesting and illuminating discussion. I work at a university surrounded by (medical) scientists, so it is rare that I see or participate in a discussion like this with a bunch of just "regular" folks.

(though to be sure, I don't think SMC is exactly a random cross section of the populace.)

I've tried to be careful in my posts, so I hope I have not offended anyone.

In particular, I have appreciated the informed and detailed comments from Jeff Makiel. It is great to hear from people who have in their own experience, come across real data on this topic.
:cool: Ahh, to stray from the Ivy Towers and mingle into the great unwashed crowd. How brave and the war stories to tell. Bravo! Bravo.....:D

Gary K.

Jeffrey Fusaro
06-14-2007, 10:04 AM
I agree that this discussion has been both entertaining and educational. I have a few random thoughts on the issue. Take them to be serious or take them to be cynical. I guess they are both. None are intended to offend.

Is it possible that human activity is altering the temperature of the container that we live in? Yes. I must agree that I believe that it is possible. We can, and do influence our environment in visible ways like air and water pollution. So, I must admit that it is possible for us to affect the environment in ways that are not quite so easily visible. Therefore, since I agree that we may be influencing the climatic change in a negative way, am I then confining myself to admit that we can undo what we have done? I guess so. To do otherwise would be considered hypocritical. However, regarding something as global as climatic change, I also feel that any affect we have is hugely overshadowed by other factors, such as changes is solar activity, geothermal activity and natural cyclic activity over the lifespan of the planet.

That brings me to my next point. This is where I struggle with this issue and others like it.

Let me state that I mean no disrespect to the good folks who present the data. But, when I start hearing that the planet is four billion years old and that we can scientifically evaluate phenomenon that are nearly one million years old, I just quit listening. I do not honestly believe that this has any connection to reality, whatsoever. I don’t intend to turn this into a theological discussion, but if I am supposed to take this seriously, then the science has to start its hypothesis in a time frame that I consider to be realistic – a planetary lifespan in the neighborhood of ten thousand years. If I am going to take a stand on that timeframe, I cannot possibly give any serious consideration to technical equipment that can supposedly measure something that occurred long before there was anything to measure. I don't think that it is as simple as re-scaling the four billion year timeline to fit the ten thousand year timeline and redrawing a conclusion.

When I was taught about a hypothesis, the technique was to state your hypothesis (theory) and then work exhaustively to try to disprove that same theory. Having been able to dis-prove your original theory meant you were wrong. Having been unable to disprove your theory meant you were possibly correct. Have we done our homework correctly? Or are we aggressively searching for and misinterpreting or misrepresenting our findings in order to fit our theory? If so, this is not science.

Let’s not forget some other recent so-called cataclysmic scenarios like global cooling, the population explosion, global food shortage and famine, and the hole in the ozone layer that was supposedly going to leave us all blind and scorched by the unfiltered sun. The hole in the ozone layer was supposedly caused by all of the activity during the industrial revolution (and CFC emissions, in particular). Did we really undo all of that damage in the last few years? Or, were we really not responsible for that in the first place? Was the ozone layer able to heal itself in spite of what we did or didn’t do in response? Or, was this normal cyclic activity inside the container?

I believe that there is too much emotion, money and ultimately, potential for power gain behind the scene in this “scientific” debate.

Finally, it only takes an earthquake, volcano eruption, hurricane or a tsunami to remind us that we aren’t really running the show.

Dennis Peacock
06-14-2007, 10:34 AM
Good Morning Everyone......

Looks like a very good discussion.....BUT it appears that it's beginning to get a little out of hand.

Please...let's keep our emotions at home and keep the discussion on an even keel and keep playing like us grownups should.

Dennis Peacock
06-14-2007, 10:39 AM
Finally, it only takes an earthquake, volcano eruption, hurricane or a tsunami to remind us that we aren’t really running the show.

Now isn't THAT the truth!!!!!

Wayne,

"One correction: that should read: taxing us into oblivion. We are already being taxed to death."

Ya know...there was this "tea party" in Boston way back when...I believe it had to do with taxes being too high. Your words are spot on.....We are taxes on everything we do and are even taxed on our tax returns. That's why we don't get to vote on things any more...the country isn't ran "by the people, for the people" any more. But that's a whole 'nuther topic.

Global warming? Sure is hot outside today. Sure will be glad when fall/winter gets here. :D

Robert E Lee
06-14-2007, 11:33 AM
I have a question. On a hot day if you lay down in a grassy field it is fairly cool, whereas pavement, cement and building roofs give off a lot of heat. How many sq miles of grassy fields have we covered up and is it enough to make a difference? Just curious.
Bob

Leigh Costello
06-14-2007, 12:10 PM
Robert,
Exactly what I was going to ask. Last night I was in downtown St. Louis, MO. At 9:25 pm the air temp was (according to car thermometer) 74 degrees. Pleasant by any standard. The pavement was warm to the touch, and the reflected heat from the building I was exiting was much warmer than 74 deg.

By the time I reached home at 10:25 pm in rural MO, the air temp was 65 deg. ( again according to car thermometer). I opened all the windows, slept comfortably with evening breezes cooling my house to a very pleasant 67 degrees overnight. BTW, I would never let my house get this cool in the winter.:eek:

When I tuned in local news this morning, the temp in StL was in the 70's. Here, the 60's. My point, it is truly cooler to live in the country. Pavement retains heat, which seems to sway surface temps. My average electric bill is $79.00, with laser running a lot. I heat with wood in winter and LP for water heater and range.

Global warming, yes, probably. Can we control it, no. Can we clean up our earth, most definitely. Reduce, reuse, recycle. I believe that is all we can do. I am absolutely positive that sometime in the future there will be another scare and another and another....

Frank Kobilsek
06-14-2007, 12:30 PM
God created us and the earth and he'll destroy both in his own time.

Regardless of Global Warming arguement there are many good economic and social reasons to implement some of the Global Warming prevention measures. If we are generally less wasteful and selfish and slightly more imaginative this and other problems will be allievated.

Frank

Belinda Barfield
06-14-2007, 12:34 PM
One theory is that large cities create their own weather patterns due to heat buildup. Atlanta is a prime example. You can watch a thunderstorm on radar as it approaches the city, then splits and goes around. Interesting point you brought up. I also wonder how much reflected heat is contributing to the "problem".

Art Mulder
06-14-2007, 1:05 PM
I have a question. On a hot day if you lay down in a grassy field it is fairly cool, whereas pavement, cement and building roofs give off a lot of heat. How many sq miles of grassy fields have we covered up and is it enough to make a difference? Just curious.
Bob

Sure it does. I used to live in Edmonton - located in Northern Alberta - and it was always a few degrees warmer in the city than outside. Talk to anyone who gardens, and makes use of garden zone maps and they'll tell you.

But it isn't just heat, it's also water runoff. All this ground is covered up that used to be absorbing water, and now isn't. I remember hearing after Hurricane Katrina that this was a factor for how the landscape around New Orleans had changed since the area was built up over the last hundred years, and waterways were redirected and so on.

John Schreiber
06-14-2007, 1:27 PM
I have a question. On a hot day if you lay down in a grassy field it is fairly cool, whereas pavement, cement and building roofs give off a lot of heat. How many sq miles of grassy fields have we covered up and is it enough to make a difference? Just curious.
Bob
I wondered about that too. Also, what is the effect of all the heat we generate burning things, through nuclear power and just through all the activity going on?

My understanding is that those things contribute to the problem, but are not nearly as significant as the generation of greenhouse gases. For instance, one gallon of gasoline, which weighs just 8.66 pounds, when used to power a car, produces 19.4 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2). Gasoline, a "hydrocarbon" is mostly carbon. That carbon combines with oxygen in the air to produce CO2.

CO2 is called a greenhouse gas because in the atmosphere, it acts like the glass on a greenhouse. It let's heat and light in from the sun, but it slows the escape of heat from the planet. Net effect, increased temperature.

Ken Garlock
06-14-2007, 3:24 PM
Well gents you are free to disagree with my comments. That is fine, and I support your right to disagree.

The point I was trying to make is that consensus means nothing. Gravity is not a theory, it is a scientific fact. If you don't believe it, jump off a building some time to test it. It is repeatable. You can say the same about Newton's laws of motion, and Kepler's laws of planetary motion. A scientific law gives you the same answer every time.

As for Galileo, you might want to read the book Galileo's Daughter by Dava Sobel.

Finally the chicken or the egg question, warming or CO2. Take a look at the outline of a British TV documentary (http://blog.lib.umn.edu/saintx/eremite/2007/03/the_great_global_warming_swind.html) that was also shown of the Discovery Science channel. It reports that there are serious flaws in the CO2 argument. In addition, there is doubt about the UN Climate Change report. The writers were given the answer and then had to write a document to support the answer. There are names of scientists on the report who had quit the effort because they did not agree with it, but were still listed as participants implying they agreed with the conclusions.

Don't be led astray by has-beens that fly in private jets and rack up $30,000 annual utility bills.

Chris Padilla
06-14-2007, 3:29 PM
Just what is your point, if you indeed have one? Huh, Santa?:rolleyes:
Gary K.

Just injecting a wee bit o' humor, Gary...or attempting to! ;)

Curt Harms
06-14-2007, 3:52 PM
Someone observed earlier in the thread that there are more forests today than there were 100 years ago. That's probably true in the U.S. How about the rest of the world? How much CO2 that would have been converted to cellulose by trees in South America, Asia or Africa is still in the atmosphere because the plants that would have converted that Carbon into a non-gaseous form were cut down and the land cleared? I've never seen a number, has anyone else? True, some of the the carbon tied up in plants will become CO2 again as a result of decomposition but not all. Perhaps we're at a point in the cycle where in the last half century or so we're both converting solid carbon (coal & oil) into gas at an increasing rate and reducing the converters of carbon from gaseous form to solid form at an increasing rate (plant life). Double whammy? Dunno, just wastin' electrons.

Curt

Gary Keedwell
06-14-2007, 6:49 PM
Just injecting a wee bit o' humor, Gary...or attempting to! ;)
:) No problem here....I just get all bent out of shape with all the politics,,,really gets my goat to hear all the hippocrites:mad:
Has anybody here tried to wipe his or her behind with one little piece of toilet paper???:confused:
Is anybody here bothered by people who fly around in jets, drive big SUV's and live in massive mansions and then tell to you to live like a monk? Do as I say not as I do.
I also bet that if you took all their pensions away and told them they had to live on Social Security.....That whole system would be fixed in a jiffy!!!:(

Gary K.

Cliff Rohrabacher
06-14-2007, 7:40 PM
God created us and the earth and he'll destroy both in his own time.

Regardless of Global Warming arguement there are many good economic and social reasons to implement some of the Global Warming prevention measures. If we are generally less wasteful and selfish and slightly more imaginative this and other problems will be allievated.

Frank


Even if you don't invoke the "god" language instead take a wholly secularist or capitalist position it is economically logical to conserve if for no other reason than that conservation ifs the only way to insulate oneself from OPEC and it's price gouging

Brian Kent
06-14-2007, 10:32 PM
Real. Natural cyclic, but exacerbated and accelerated by human endeavors. We may be able to mitigate some of the damage we have done to this point, but perhaps not all. There is no "who" to blame...any effect that humanity brought belongs to all of us...as does the responsibility to do what we can to reduce our impact on the climate of our planet. You and me will likely not suffer a lot of the ill effects, but future generations will.

IMHO, of course and the price was right!

Jim,
That is the best summary I have heard of my own understanding of the problem. Many factors involved - some are human factors that can be adapted.

I keep on getting this image of a lake, where my own kids have to live on a fairly shallow island in the lake. The lake is rising and the island appears to be shrinking. I have a firehose that is shooting water full blast into the lake. I could argue that the changes in rainfall and evaporation account for more than my firehose, but then again, the island appears to be shrinking. The key factor in my decision making is that I love my kids and won't take a chance in hurting them. I'll turn off the hose.

The actions we can take are actually actions that help us in many other ways: Fuel costs, international dependence on oil, air pollution. We benefit all the way around by figuring out answers to this problem too. We can do it. Far from being an overall burden, there are great economic benefits in getting our oil use in control.

I live in Riverside, California, a part of the worse smog belt in the country. I am deeply and daily grateful for all the work that has already been done in this area to clean up the air. It really means something in our health and quality of life. 20 years ago I would drive through Riverside to get to an annual business meeting. Even with the windows up and the AC on, the air would make my chest hurt and my eyes irritated and my stomach sick. It's still bad just a few miles north because of air trapped by a mountain range, but the overall quality is unbelievably improved.

Thank you to everyone who did the research on clean auto emissions, who put up with catalytic convertors when they slowed down cars of that day, for factories who changed their solvents or put scrubbers in their smokestack. It really makes a gigantic difference in millions of lives in my area. I love our kids. Thanks for helping them breath!

Gary Keedwell
06-14-2007, 11:32 PM
The solar system is heating up from the sun's activity Astronomers have concluded that the other planets are warming somewhat.

There is increased geothermal activity in that deep sea volcanoes and other events are on the up tick the child of Krakatoa is about the same size as the original was when it blew.

The Ice cores that are used to show us how the earth was made hotter by CO2 millions of years ago fail entirely to say which was first the heat or the CO2.
They also only contain elements and materials that are merely associated with warm temperatures and otherwise have no positive evidence that it was actually warm.

There is absolutely no affirmative link between Anthropogenic gases and the earth's warming - it's merely an unproven theory.

The Temperature spike the warmers allude to is LESS then one whole degree C and this is over an 80 - 100 year period. There is no real evidence that warming is even a reality to begin with.

NASA people insist that the Warmers are sampling the oceanis temperature in places where they know the water will be warmer and NASA says it has better glovbal data.

The warmer's predictions are all based entirely on flawed inadequate computer models that are simply not ever going to be able to return a true result because of too many variables which are not made available to them and a host of other reasons.

There are a few classes of people who are predisposed to find the warmer's arguments persuasive:

1.) The David Suzuki cult of scientists and their followers. Suzuki was the guy who brought us Global Cooling and has since moved on with not so much as an admission of error. These people have a unifying philosophical position that all humanity is evil and must be subordinated to the non-human aspects of the natural world - as if humans were space aliens from some trans dimensional universe who are violating this planet..

2.) Social Communists of Europe who want a one-world-government and see the power of the purse VIA energy manipulation as the device for obtaining their goal.

3.) Social Communists in general who see things like Kyopto as a supremely elegant tool by which tio transfer money and power to the poorer unsophisticated nations whose citizens have managed to miss the industrial revolution and never to have joined the technical age of the 20th century. (Welfare for everyone)




My position on Global warming and the Kyoto Treaty is that the whole thing is a boondoggle fabricated to effectuate a wealth transfer from wealthy countries to poorer ones as well as a power transfer device intended to make for a global over all authority with the power of the purse over all nations.
I've read through it all again and Cliff has my vote for the post that has the best handle on the whole boondoggle. :cool:
Gary K.

John Schreiber
06-15-2007, 2:08 AM
Well gents you are free to disagree with my comments. That is fine, and I support your right to disagree.Likewise.


The point I was trying to make is that consensus means nothing.It is always possible for a consensus to be wrong. However usually it isn't. There can be valid woodworking debate between PVA and Poly glues, but no one is arguing that honey is the best glue.


Gravity is not a theory, it is a scientific fact. If you don't believe it, jump off a building some time to test it. It is repeatable. You can say the same about Newton's laws of motion, and Kepler's laws of planetary motion. A scientific law gives you the same answer every time.I must disagree here. Gravity and the "laws" of motion were vastly reinterpreted by Einsteinian relativity and quantum physics. Gravity and Newton's laws of motion do not apply on the very small scale and perhaps on the very large scale.


As for Galileo, you might want to read the book Galileo's Daughter by Dava Sobel.I haven't read it, but it sounds interesting.


Finally the chicken or the egg question, warming or CO2. Take a look at the outline of a British TV documentary that was also shown of the Discovery Science channel. It reports that there are serious flaws in the CO2 argument. In addition, there is doubt about the UN Climate Change report. The writers were given the answer and then had to write a document to support the answer. There are names of scientists on the report who had quit the effort because they did not agree with it, but were still listed as participants implying they agreed with the conclusions..I haven't seen the film, but I have read up on it. You bet there are flaws and incomplete information. It is a theory as big as the planet. The film plays up those flaws and disagreements and makes them seem as though the conclusion is in doubt. One of the scientists who appears in the film has repeatedly said that his quotes were taken out of context and do not reflect his belief. No film will persuade me one way or another.


Don't be led astray by has-beens that fly in private jets and rack up $30,000 annual utility bills.Without going into politics, I'll leave that alone.

Here is a list of international scientific organizations which support the theory of human generated global warming.

Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand,
Academy of Sciences Malaysia,
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy),
Australian Academy of Sciences,
Brazilian Academy of Sciences,
Caribbean Academy of Sciences,
Chinese Academy of Sciences,
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
French Academy of Sciences,
German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina,
Indian National Science Academy,
Indonesian Academy of Sciences,
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts,
Royal Irish Academy,
Royal Society of Canada,
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and
Royal Society (UK)
Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
Here's a list of American scientific organizations which support the theory of human generated global warming.

American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of State Climatologists
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Quaternary Association
Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006
Geological Society of America
U.S. National Academy of Science
U.S. National Research Council, 2001
Here's a list of scientific organizations which do not support the theory of human generated global warming.

American Association of Petroleum Geologists
The lists could be incomplete, but they are the best I could come up with in an hour or so on-line.

I am comfortable aligning myself with the majority above. I also feel comfortable knowing that if I am wrong, I will have wasted time and money. If I am right, I may be helping to prevent major changes in our planet that will be harmful to billions.

DAVID CASHDAN
06-15-2007, 2:40 AM
What do you woodworkers think of global warming? Is it real? Is it natural? Can we stop it? Who do you think is to blame???


I BLAME THE SUN :D

dave

Glen Gunderson
06-15-2007, 4:46 AM
I've read through it all again and Cliff has my vote for the post that has the best handle on the whole boondoggle. :cool:
Gary K.


Many of his criticisms are merited, but I'm afraid when you blame the theory of global warming on Communists and suggest that the world's scientists are part of a vast conspiracy to transfer wealth from the richer nations to the poorer ones, I'm afraid you've lost me. The Kyoto Protocol certainly has its problems, but if you primarily see this issue in terms of politics, then there's really no debating matters because it just boils down to a bunch of crap on both sides.


The real question for me is, what is the harm in following the path of conservation? Steven Triggs put it quite well several posts up. I fully agree that we should all be conscious of our consumption because to not do so is somewhat wasteful. This isn't because of some abstract science or fear of impending doom, but because our resources must be preserved and if we can still live a fairly comfortable life while doing so, why not?

I can certainly understand skeptics resistance to carbon credit trading and all of the seemlier aspects of the protocol. However, what would be wrong with putting measures in place to reduce emissions (and by extension, use of resources)? So many small and simple steps can be taken by the average person and various industries to reduce our environmental impact, but no one can be bothered to do so.

Jim Becker
06-15-2007, 8:47 AM
I BLAME THE SUN

There is that...:o

Dennis Peacock
06-15-2007, 9:07 AM
I BLAME THE SUN :D

dave

Now THAT's the best answer I've seen yet. Great one there Dave. :D

Frank Kobilsek
06-15-2007, 10:44 AM
Cliff

I believe you are right about the Conversation thing. When I was an alderman in my small town I nearly got tarred and feather when I started curb side recycling. I am not an enviromentalist! I just think its stupid to waste resources.

I bolded the 'Some' in my statement as there are many of the global warming solutions that are ridiculus. A few examples:
1) One square of TP, somebody already mentioned this
2) Banning incadencent light bulbs. Energy saving versus mercury in the small fluorencent bulbs. Every product has its rational use don't force me to use a bad tool when a perfectly good one is available and cost effective.
3) Public funding of wind turbines. In my area there wind farms are going up everywhere. I think they are great source of energy, they benefit the landowner farmers and make power for basically free. The problem I have it the Energy Tax Credit that virtually refunds the investors thier investment in two years. If the investors in the turbines can not make money on their investment by selling electricity I should not pay them for thier bad decision.

Frank

Joe Melton
06-15-2007, 12:18 PM
I first became aware of global warning concerns twenty five years ago when doing energy modeling. At that time, only a very few people spoke of this potential problem, but the predictions they made then have come to be reality.
The mechanism of our atmosphere is that gases like CO2 and methane trap some of the sun's radiation and hold it in the lower atmosphere, heating it. The natural "greenhouse effect" made the earth warm enough to sustain life, but the effect is much higher now and the types and varieties of life the earth will sustain are changing. The tenuous balance that retains the correct amount of heat in our atmosphere is off. Burning fossil fuels, like coal and gasoline, releases carbon dioxide which has thrown the balance out of whack. As China and India become more industrialized, and as the earth's population continues to soar, it is only going to get worse.
Many very intelligent and educated people have devoted their careers to studying this phenomenon. I just don't understand how people are so quick to dismiss their reports.
Joe

nic obie
06-15-2007, 9:06 PM
Global warming, tree huggers that spike trees, radical PETA perps = The New Religion of this era.

I'd be very careful of their preachers as we need to be careful of all that have their own agenda. Remember, these academias are out to make money, or at least pump up their jobs.

I say lock this thread like it's done when anyone else is looking to make a profit here.

Jim Becker
06-15-2007, 9:10 PM
Remember, these academias are out to make money

Trust me, Nic...folks in academia don't make a whole lot of money compared to private industry...

nic obie
06-15-2007, 9:13 PM
Trust me, Nic...folks in academia don't make a whole lot of money compared to private industry...

You mean like the guys in the FDA that aprove drugs?

Hahahahahaha...

Just another bunch of crooks that have killed people.

Jim Becker
06-15-2007, 9:44 PM
Government agencies are not "academia", Nic.
-----

And switching gears to my moderator roll...it's ok to disagree with someone "out there", but calling them names is not representative of the spirit of our SMC community nor the TOS. This is a reminder to everyone participating in this (and any) thread.

Jim
SMC Moderator

Gary Keedwell
06-15-2007, 10:31 PM
When adding the "perks", academia can compete financially with the "dreaded private sector". Job security, vacations galore, healthy pensions etc, Divide the money by the # of hours they actually "work" you will see what they really make.
Top it off with the "power" they have over students and the "prestige factor" ...most of those pseudo intellectuals, would have to be bound and dragged from their elite "jobs" to work in the dreaded private sector.

Gary K,

Rob Bourgeois
06-16-2007, 1:05 AM
As some one who is a research associate at a major university. I can see that some of you have a whole bunch of false notions of academia, professors and college/university employed researchers.

My boss..full professor works over 50 hours a week. IS it difficult work...not physically, mentally taxing yes. Frustrating very much so. (he has to deal with me). Maybe some professor at Yale or some Ivy league school has prestige as a chest puffing factor. But not any of the guys I work with or did work with in the past and 1 of them have testified in front of congress. He is just an everyday guy who picks his kids up from practice and drinks Coronas and BBQs on the weekend.

In addition...if money is the only reason you do a job. I feel sorry for that person. I would bet that the majority of the professors do it because they are like myself. They like thinking about how to figure out a problem, like being around young adults, some like teaching and others just like learning. The best part of my day wasnt walking around with my chest puffed out...it was teaching a 20 year old girl how to back a boat down a launch and how to drive a boat today while we were taking water samples. I could have done it 10 times quicker...but thats not my job. My job is to collect my data and train the next group of scientists.

As for global warming...I am not getting started on that in here. The majority woudlnt listen because like religion....people dont change their mind on this subject.

Oh and just to add a bit here...I am in the process of losing my job due to Federal and state budget cuts. So pardon me if I seem a bit rude. But your comments really hit a nerve. Now I have to go look for a job probably in industry where I will be making more money, but I rather stay here and teach kids how to do things. At 34 I am the oldest in the lab except for my boss, primarily because the money sucks and the hours are long. BUT given a choice I would stay at this job till the force me to retire...that wont happen now since the position I hold will disappear off the books.

Glenn Clabo
06-16-2007, 6:44 AM
Gary...
You really...really...really...have no idea what you are talking about.

First...my wife went from working in your so called "private" section...took 4 years off...without pay...to get a job as a professor. Her "private sector" job paid 3 times what she get's now AND she went from 40-45 hrs a week...big office...fancy title...lot's of people working for her. To spending more than 60 hrs in the office were you have to buy your own paper to make copies... put down you credit card to travel...and never really gets a vacation. I doubt that you would want to know...but the reason she did it wasn't for some "perks" ... or prestige ... or some power trip... or some pension that she pays for btw. She did it because she saw from her high paying job in the "private" section...that there wasn't enough people in the low paying job to teach people to take care of people.

I'm sure that like any other work place there are people who take don't pull their load...but I haven't met anyone in the that world you so misunderstand.

(p.s. - I'm one of those government workers you seem to hate so much. I just finished up a 64 hour week. That doesn't mean I get 22 hrs ot...like I would in the "private" sector.)

Jim Becker
06-16-2007, 9:59 AM
As some one who is a research associate at a major university. I can see that some of you have a whole bunch of false notions of academia, professors and college/university employed researchers.

Exactly...I can vouch for that, too....Professor Dr. SWMBO has been in academia for over 18 years now. She makes a nice living, but, for example, works all summer despite only getting paid for 9 mos, would have to pay nearly twice as much for health insurance than mine costs (and less coverage, too) and has to fight tooth and nail for research funding because cancer research isn't as important than things like anthrax these days. She often works at night and sometimes on the weekend, too...and there is no additional pay. This is all in addition to teaching each semester as well as providing guidance to doctoral students. And as Glenn mentions...no real vacation outside of what she is able to take on her own.

Rob Bourgeois
06-16-2007, 11:45 AM
Right Jim and Glenn...

Then theres the soft money researcher who lives on grant money alone. bad year for money..no job. Congress suspends grants due to 9-11..no job

Gary Keedwell
06-16-2007, 12:05 PM
Gary...
You really...really...really...have no idea what you are talking about.

First...my wife went from working in your so called "private" section...took 4 years off...without pay...to get a job as a professor. Her "private sector" job paid 3 times what she get's now AND she went from 40-45 hrs a week...big office...fancy title...lot's of people working for her. To spending more than 60 hrs in the office were you have to buy your own paper to make copies... put down you credit card to travel...and never really gets a vacation. I doubt that you would want to know...but the reason she did it wasn't for some "perks" ... or prestige ... or some power trip... or some pension that she pays for btw. She did it because she saw from her high paying job in the "private" section...that there wasn't enough people in the low paying job to teach people to take care of people.

I'm sure that like any other work place there are people who take don't pull their load...but I haven't met anyone in the that world you so misunderstand.

(p.s. - I'm one of those government workers you seem to hate so much. I just finished up a 64 hour week. That doesn't mean I get 22 hrs ot...like I would in the "private" sector.)
:rolleyes: First off....you have every right to disagree with anybody you please. That is your right. You also have a right to tell someone that they "don't know what their talking about" Isn't the U.S.A. a great place to live? :)
Right here in Massachusetts, news people with cameras followed government employees around for a few weeks. Naps, running errands, hours in barrooms etc, was all caught on cameras.
I have numerous friends with tons of stories of government employees and their escapades. Sure...every industry has their dead-beats...but it is alot easier to fire a private sector employee then a union-laden government person. It practically takes an act of congress to do that.
Don't forget, that the amount of union emplyees in the USA is something in the vicinity of 13%. The only reason that it is that "high" is because the amount of government workers (laborors, teachers,police, firemen etc.) that is unionized, is probably 90%.
Gary K. PS. I don't "hate" government emplyees. I envy them. :>)

Steveo O'Banion
12-21-2007, 9:13 AM
You can't deny that things are getting warmer on a global basis (look at satellite images of the the polar caps) but we also know temperature change has been recorded historicaly over the past 500+ years (The mini-Ice Age for example) My lot was under glacial ice 10,000 years ago when it was really cold, then it got a lot warmer without mans influence at all. Thank goodness for small favors!:)

We are also surrounded by a lot of bad science that frequently gets overturned. Remember when eggs were "bad food", that vitamin E was good for your heart, that fiber prevented colorectal cancer and transfats were the "healthy" oils? Upon further review we know those claims are wrong.

Do we have an impact, certainly, but to what extent we really don't know. I'll NEVER buy the claim that North America is "The Bad Guy" in all this. I don't know of a nation that puts the emission controls on vehicles that NA's do or works as hard to clean emissions from manufacturing plants. I know that my 07 Tundra with the 5.7L V8 burns a lot cleaner pulling a trailer up a steep grade at 70mph that the little Vespas in Italy ideling at an intersection or a Honda 2 cycle carrying five kids in Bejing.

The solutions are pretty simple. 1. Get the rest of the world to clean up their act. 2. Figure out how we can stop the destruction of forests and grasslands around the world, including here in NA. Green vegatation scrubs the air and locks up carbon in the plant tissue. That's 4th grade science.

Scientific American ran an article within the past few weeks discussing the impact of Katrina on timberlands in the south. I can't remember the estimate of how many billions of trees were felled, but the article discussed the loss of their ability to not only scrub the air, but the problem of carbon being re-released as the trees decomposed. If you really are concerned and want to make an impact, plant a tree (not an ash, please) and make a contribution to some conservation organization that puts the money into land aquisition or restoration.

Anyway, thats my 2 bits.

Steve

Gary Keedwell
12-21-2007, 10:16 AM
Global warming.....
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8

OR

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=DE6A54BF-802A-23AD-45ED-60AE6F3FEBE2

The arrogance that we can change our weather is amazing

Gary

Ken Fitzgerald
12-21-2007, 11:05 AM
In the 60's there was college class taught....the prof opened the class by saying...."You'll probably find this class boring.....(he had a 40% drop rate).....""We are now coming to the end of an ice age of which the earth has gone through several"""......

I don't think, however, you have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that a healthier environment is good for all. As a former 41 year smoker, I know what the environment I put my body through for those years could cause. Everyday working in radiology departments I see needle biopsies on lungs, etc. To say that environment can't cause health issues ...well...

I for one don't think we really have the scientific evidence to prove man is the cause of global warming. But I will agree we are adding to it. I would think there are natural events that will and do have a greater effect......volcanic eruptions for example....other things that scientists don't yet totally understand....

I think we live in a time when man is making scientific strides. I also think we live in a time when fewer people are able to separate their pre-study beliefs from their research and thus the results of their research is in someways preordained......I'll guarantee regularly you see reports of studies done by such and such a group....it counters a previous study that was just recently performed. This is a case of rushing to judgement or results....and the other thing I want to know...."who financed the study?"....I can get a group of scientists to "find" the results I want with the right amount of money....

Though I'm not convinced man is causing the green house effect I think we are surely adding to it. To me it makes good common and financial sense to drive cars that are more fuel efficient and build homes and offices that are more fuel efficient. Just makes common sense.

Just like forestry. As surely as there is good money in harvesting and selling the wood from which we build furniture, homes or turn...there should also be good money in reforestation. Just makes sense since it's renewable.

I'm not an envionmentalist....I'm a conservationist....Use wisely......I hunt and fish......I believe in bag limits.....so I and future generations can do the same in the future.....

Lastly, man is part of nature. As we continue to increase the population of the world some changes are going to happen. But man is part of nature.

Chris Padilla
12-21-2007, 11:58 AM
Wasn't it a Rush song that said:

"Changes aren't permanent, but change is."

Wouldn't it be so cool to time travel? Move ahead 50 years...figure out who was right and who was wrong.

In general, I think it is wise to simply become more energy efficient. We are consumers of energy and the planet does not have infinite stores of energy. If we use what we have right now more efficiently, it will last much longer and we can still maintain our quality of life.

Gary Keedwell
12-21-2007, 12:08 PM
Have you noticed that from the time you wake up in the morning to the middle of the day, the globe seems to warm? Have you also noticed how that warming seems to correspond with that giant ball of light in the sky? It's so weird!
Actually, many scientists do believe the activity of the sun is at an 8,000-year high over the past 60 years and may very well be at least partially responsible for the recent warming trend.
The so-called environmentalists like to tell us to do our share. Real science tells us that just the increase in the amount of coal that China will burn by 2020 will send as much CO2 into the atmosphere as 3 billion Ford Expeditions, each driven 15,000 miles a year. That's right. The increased burning of one source of energy by one country is equal to the CO2 emissions from 3 billion giant Ford Evpedition SUV's. At its current pace, it would take Ford 15,000 years even to sell that many.
Just a few thoughts for those people that are feeling good about their hybrid vehicles.;)
Gary

Chris Padilla
12-21-2007, 12:12 PM
My hybrid vehicle requires thigh and calf power to move.... :D

Heather Thompson
12-21-2007, 12:39 PM
My hybrid vehicle requires thigh and calf power to move.... :D

Chris,

I have been driving one of those since the early sixties, nice touring machines and grocery getters. A couple of years ago I convinced LOML to get a two seater model, he has cerebral palsy so I do the driving, we took a trip in Wisconsin for our vacation. That hybrid actually has the power to pull a trailer (Burley), I must admit that on long up-hills the performance will lack a little :o, but get out of the way on the other side of the hill :D.

Heather

Cliff Rohrabacher
12-21-2007, 12:40 PM
In the world of green house gases the most likely to actually be meaningful is water vapor.

CO2 is seven times less robust than water vapor at trapping heat.

There is substantially more water vapor in the atmosphere than there is CO2.

CO2 is however (and very interestingly) the only green house gas that can be traced directly to almost every activity of a highly technological nation - those would just happen to be the ones with all the money.

ERGO: The Kyoto rules about cutting the so called developing nations some slack.

I understand Kyoto to be a tool to extract money from the USA and like nations and funnel it to other nations with the old school European nations acting as the Bursar.
It's quite the power shifting and wealth transfer mechanism. Socialism on a global scale.

Hank Phillips
12-21-2007, 12:49 PM
I'm in a hurry to get out of the office for the holiday, just wanted to post a link to this article in case anyone was interested in reading it:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

Merry Christmas!:D

Jim Becker
12-21-2007, 1:00 PM
I have been driving one of those since the early sixties, nice touring machines and grocery getters. A couple of years ago I convinced LOML to get a two seater model, he has cerebral palsy so I do the driving, we took a trip in Wisconsin for our vacation. That hybrid actually has the power to pull a trailer (Burley), I must admit that on long up-hills the performance will lack a little , but get out of the way on the other side of the hill .

Chris just peddles harder on the hills...yup...he bikes to work; hence the "hybrid" calf and thigh power. :D

We're a two hybrid family...2002 Prius and 2006 Highlander hybrid. No bicycles, however...

Cliff Rohrabacher
12-21-2007, 1:13 PM
:rolleyes: First off....you have every right to disagree with anybody you please. That is your right. You also have a right to tell someone that they "don't know what their talking about" Isn't the U.S.A. a great place to live? :)
Right here in Massachusetts, news people with cameras followed government employees around for a few weeks. Naps, running errands, hours in barrooms etc, was all caught on cameras.
I have numerous friends with tons of stories of government employees and their escapades. Sure...every industry has their dead-beats...but it is alot easier to fire a private sector employee then a union-laden government person. It practically takes an act of congress to do that.
Don't forget, that the amount of union emplyees in the USA is something in the vicinity of 13%. The only reason that it is that "high" is because the amount of government workers (laborors, teachers,police, firemen etc.) that is unionized, is probably 90%.
Gary K. PS. I don't "hate" government emplyees. I envy them. :>)

Did they publish it - - make a web site ????

Dennis Peacock
12-21-2007, 1:23 PM
Maaaaaannnnnnnn.....who "stirred" this pot again? :rolleyes: :)

Chris Padilla
12-21-2007, 1:36 PM
Gotta heat things up, Dennis, moving into the lazy, eatin' too much, dozin' in frunna da tube weekend! :D :D

Dennis Peacock
12-21-2007, 1:44 PM
Gotta heat things up, Dennis, moving into the lazy, eatin' too much, dozin' in frunna da tube weekend! :D :D

ROFL!!!!! Now THAT's a mouthful right there. :D

Al Willits
12-21-2007, 1:54 PM
Special interest groups promote special interests, any way they can.

There's a old saying, figures never lie, but liars figure.

Anybody who is getting grants is suspect of the truth, spin doctoring to make their cause worth the funding is probably common practice imho

Got a better cause for ya, how about over population?
Cut the worlds population down by 50% and many of these problem become way easier to deal with.
Global warming or not, we will run out of room for the continuing population, that's what we should be worried about.

Teachers under paid???
Not so sure, add the security of being tenured and option for making money the 2 or 3 months their off, might not be as bad as they make it out to be, but that's a whole new ballgame we could get into.
Check out the salaries at the U of MN if ya get bored, I doubt many of these state funded teachers are starving to death.

Al...who doubts we'll solve it here, but it beats looking at snow...:)

Walt Nicholson
12-21-2007, 2:02 PM
This is a subject that can and will be debated for the next hundred years until we see who is right or wrong, but it is obvious, by some of the heated replies, that it also invokes a lot of emotion. Why don't we ask the moderator to put this post on hold until after January 1st so that we all can concentrate on the season, spending time with family and friends and winding down to enjoy what we have in front of us. (think pleasant thoughts-lower your blood pressure). Then if someone wants to take up the battle with a vengance when it is "business as usual" let them go for it. Regardless of your beliefs, this should be a time for peace. I have learned a lot from many posts in the short time I have been a member and want to thank all who have contributed to my "learning curve". Merry Christmas to all.

Greg Peterson
12-21-2007, 2:37 PM
I'm not sure why this thread was unlocked. Lots of folks posting opinion and so far I haven't seen anyone being converted.

Chris Padilla
12-21-2007, 2:39 PM
I'm not sure why this thread was unlocked. Lots of folks posting opinion and so far I haven't seen anyone being converted.


That is because there are so many opinions and "facts" floating around; I honestly do not know what to believe.

All I can do is to continue to practice conservation to the best of my ability. :)

Heather Thompson
12-21-2007, 2:50 PM
Chris just peddles harder on the hills...yup...he bikes to work; hence the "hybrid" calf and thigh power. :D

We're a two hybrid family...2002 Prius and 2006 Highlander hybrid. No bicycles, however...

Jim,

You need to get some of those old time hybrids, good for you and Dr. SWMBO and the girls, I used to pull then ride with my son on many nice days. These activities are good for the environment and the travelers, my form of meditation. :)

Heather

Gary Keedwell
12-21-2007, 3:10 PM
I'm not sure why this thread was unlocked. Lots of folks posting opinion and so far I haven't seen anyone being converted.
Well, maybe it was because the last "consensus" 30 years ago told us the earth was going to freeze over. It is always good to question especially with the money their throwing around. ( income redistribution)
Gary

Jim Becker
12-21-2007, 3:55 PM
You need to get some of those old time hybrids, good for you and Dr. SWMBO and the girls, I used to pull then ride with my son on many nice days. These activities are good for the environment and the travelers, my form of meditation.

I don't disagree, but there are safety issues with bicycles for our family...it's not safe for even an adult to ride on the road we live on, IMHO (although packs of them do...), and our girls are not yet, umm...responsible enough...to be trusted to stay away from the road and just ride on the drive. Therefore, in order to ride, we'd have to transport said bikes and riders elsewhere...we just can't add another activity to our long list already keeping us running. Karate, swimming and horsie activities will have to suffice for now.

Oh, and we'd still have to teach them to ride. Neither has ever been on a bike.

Greg Peterson
12-21-2007, 5:23 PM
Well, maybe it was because the last "consensus" 30 years ago told us the earth was going to freeze over. It is always good to question especially with the money their throwing around. ( income redistribution)
Gary

Income redistribution? Huh?

Glenn Clabo
12-21-2007, 5:35 PM
But they keep on trying...don't ya know.

John Schreiber
12-21-2007, 5:37 PM
I sincerely do not want to get into this again. It's not fun for me. I'm sorry for being so direct below, but I feel strongly about it and I can't stand to see misinformation thrown around on an issue which is so important.

We have covered this issue on the Creek at great length. There is a lot of information available in this thread and in others which can help anyone understand the issue and move forward. Please try to understand the science. Please look at the motivations of those on both sides of the argument so you can understand why they may be bending the truth.


No one is 100% sure that global warming is happening, caused by humans and/or preventable.

But if we make changes unnecessarily, we will waste time and money and leave our planet cleaner. If two-billion people die around the world because we were afraid of making changes . . .

I'll leave that conclusion to you.

Glenn Clabo
12-21-2007, 5:48 PM
My friend...what I see is...

Jim Becker
12-21-2007, 5:55 PM
Let's give it a rest folks. Nothing new and already getting close to political in some new responses.

Jim
SMC Moderator