# Global Warming, anyone?



## Cruentus (Jun 17, 2004)

Ten leading US climate scientists spoke on Tuesday of the need for more urgent action to tackle global warming. 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3810291.stm

Anyone see the movie "The Day After Tomorrow"? A reality or no?

Should we be worrying about Global Warming?


----------



## StraightRazor (Jun 17, 2004)

The "scientists" that BUILT computers were so sure about Y2K.
I dont know if I can accept that they have enough real knowledge about natural systems for me to get all twisted about a new ice age.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jun 17, 2004)

OK. Here we go. 

Global warming is something that the vast majority of scientists who work on the issue completely agree on. Global warming will not mean that the Earth will be covered in cropland, as several energy companies have suggested for several years now. The "greening" of the Earth will not happen. Global warming really means "climate fluctuation" - the hots will be hotter, the colds will be colder.

If anyone would like to check out this website, I highly recommend it. Nonprofit.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/index.cfm

They have complied some very good resources.

Some of the best work on this topic is some of what may possibly be the most boring to a lot of people - scientists studying tree fossils and tree core samples, and glacer core samples. (I think it's fascinating, but I am a self-proclaimed geek.)

This I have not looked through, but it's another link some might find interesting.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/

That said, environmental groups are also critiquing the movie "The Day After Tomorrow". 
http://www.grist.org/muck/muck060304.asp

The science in the movie is not all credible. I have not seen it, but from what I understand, the change happens too quickly. 

But hopefully the movie will light more of a fire under the general public's *** about this issue. Pardon my French.

ETA: 



> I dont know if I can accept that they have enough real knowledge about natural systems for me to get all twisted about a new ice age.


Oh, they do.  Estimates and projections may be argued on - will it be 200 years or 400?, for example - but the general idea has been supported by multiple veins of research.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 17, 2004)

From what I understand, there is debate over whether this "warming" is predominately influenced by humans or through natural process. a la volcanic activity, natural climate fluctuations etc.

Ancient ice ages, floods etc, didnt seem to need any human assistance.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jun 17, 2004)

> From what I understand, there is debate over whether this "warming" is predominately influenced by humans or through natural process. a la volcanic activity, natural climate fluctuations etc.
> 
> Ancient ice ages, floods etc, didnt seem to need any human assistance.


Very true.  There have always been fluctuations.  What most researchers are agreeing on now, however, is that the changes are occurring far more dramatically and rapidly now, after large changes in the environment (fossil feul burning and so forth) that can be pinpointed to human sources.  

Some of the most interesting work (again - geek) I think is in distinguishing between the two.  But people are agreeing that what we are seeing now is more than what looks like normally-occuring fluctuations.  

What worries me is that, although I think this is heavily involved with human activity and pollution, etc, even if it were totally "natural" and not due to human activity at all, we still should be interested in tracking it and seeing how we can slow or reverse the change.  I'm kind of fond of humans, and would hate to see us possibly extinguished after a series of Ice Ages or what have you.    Just slowing or reversing the Gulf Stream is going to have massive consequences for Western Europe.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 17, 2004)

Debate's over, dude, insofar as the general facts are concerned. We're dumping fossil fuels into the atmosphere, it's going to have real effects, that's it--except for major scientific minds like our curent Prez.

Anybody happen to see the stuff on a, "dead zone," off Oregon, which they suspect is caused by climate change? Or on coral reef changes? Or the fires two years ago in South America, which blanketed parts of Texas and Florida with smoke?

Problem is, a lot of our economy and our life depends on fairly delicately-balanced environmental conditions. It won't take much to cause real problems.


----------



## Cobra (Jun 18, 2004)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Ten leading US climate scientists spoke on Tuesday of the need for more urgent action to tackle global warming.
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3810291.stm
> 
> ...


I don't think Global Warming is anything we need to worry about. Even if Global Warming is occuring which I don't think it really will, it would take a long time for the polar ice caps to melt leading to another Ice Age. Thousands, maybe a millions of  years.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 18, 2004)

Absolutely. 

We can dump whatever crap we want into the atmosphere and onto the planet, and there Will Be No Consequences. In fact, however irresponsibly we behave, there Will Be No Consequences.

Regrettably, the actual scientific evidence says that those polar ice caps are already melting. The climate is already changing. The oceans are already in trouble, and have been for about thirty years.

But feel free to ignore reality. There Will Be No Consequences.


----------



## Taimishu (Jun 18, 2004)

Of course there is no problem or people would give up their cars, air travel, refridgerators and other things that cause or have pollutants involved in them or their manufacture.
Most of the so called greenhouse gasses are heavier than air and so hang aroung close to the ground but we are not happy with this and pump tons out of the exhausts of planes, the shuttle, and other rockets. And this is dumped right in the weather factory up there.

Nature can and will heal itself but needs a little help from us and I feel that the cutting down of forests and pollution of the seas which help absorb co2 and produce O2 is not going to help.

Nothing will happen because people are not prepared to give up things that help to cause the problem. Will you give up your car, air travel and so on?
I think not.
Leave this planet alone and it will heal itself but keep up the way we are going and its bye bye.(however not in my lifetime so sod it)

David


----------



## jeffbeish (Jun 18, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Absolutely.
> 
> We can dump whatever crap we want into the atmosphere and onto the planet, and there Will Be No Consequences. In fact, however irresponsibly we behave, there Will Be No Consequences.
> 
> ...



Let me ask, what will happen if the north polar cap melts?


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jun 18, 2004)

> Even if Global Warming is occuring which I don't think it really will, it would take a long time for the polar ice caps to melt leading to another Ice Age. Thousands, maybe a millions of years.


It's already happening.  In the 1980's scientists started noticing that the Arctic tundra is getting greener, and releasing CO2 (rather than acting as a CO2 sink, as it historiclly has).  The ice caps ARE ALREADY melting.  Scientists who study both in the Arctic and Antarctic have been recording the retreat of glaciers (melting), as well as the ice sheets that cover so much of the land.  Which, as they continue to melt, will lead to a great rising of the oceans - meaning coastal areas will get flooded.  I don't want to see Boston under 6 (or 20, or 40) feet of water, thank you very much.  We'll lose a great deal of our landmass, and our coastal areas will be lost. 

And people who live in island nations (and I'm sure we all can think of a few pivotal ones just for martial artists) will lose their homes, essentially.  

Native people living in the Arctic ("Eskimos") are already seeing the effects of global warming on the deterioration of their hunting practices, and their traditional way of life is going to have to end, probably.

One person wrote a book about it

http://www.grist.org/books/books060204.asp

here's a link to a book review.

Polar bears are starving, since the ice sheets that they live on during the winters are no longer holding up, so they cannot feast in the winters on seal as they usually do.

These are just some examples.  We may, in that unbelievable arrogance that it seems only humans are capable of sometimes, toss our heads and laugh about losing valuable ecosystems.  (Which is stupid.)  But once you talk about flooding, you can see the direct human impact.


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 18, 2004)

jeffbeish said:
			
		

> Let me ask, what will happen if the north polar cap melts?


Much of the polar ice cap is on land (although the north pole does not have land) ... Canada, Greenland, Russia, and in the south, Antarctica. As that Ice melts, the liquid form of water will be added to the oceans. This could lead to changes in ocean level and alterations of the ocean currents. 

Changes in the ocean levels will destroy low-lying land masses around the globe (the outer banks of North & South Carolina, Florida). Many of our cities are built on the waterfronts, what happens if the ocean levels rise, say 6 feet ... 12 feet? Might that affect your beach front property? 

Changes in the Ocean current could have a devistating effect on the European continent. Currently, the Gulf Stream keeps Ireland green, and the British Isles warm (relatively). Change that, and Northern Europe will all be moving south.

Yes, the planet has the ability to 'heal' itself. But it will do so on its own timetable, and now ours; as it has every other time in its history it was struck with a disaster. The problem is, like the dinosaurs, we may not be around to see the planet get better.

Mike


----------



## someguy (Jun 18, 2004)

There have been times when the Earth has had much more CO2 in the atmosphere.  An example of this would be the formation of the Decan plateau.  We will probably survive.   We will also adjust to it.  The future generations won't miss it as much as the younger generations of today.  If the problem occurs.  But here is one to add in just for fun.  This planet has gone through cycles like this before.  SO is it are fault?   Are we just simply encouraging something that would happen anyways.


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 18, 2004)

someguy said:
			
		

> There have been times when the Earth has had much more CO2 in the atmosphere. An example of this would be the formation of the Decan plateau. We will probably survive. We will also adjust to it. The future generations won't miss it as much as the younger generations of today. If the problem occurs. But here is one to add in just for fun. This planet has gone through cycles like this before. SO is it are fault? Are we just simply encouraging something that would happen anyways.


To suggest that the planet is at 'fault' is to blame a natural process ... which of course does not make sense. When the magnetic pole shifts next, there will be no one to blame (for those who don't know, it is expected that all the compasses on the planet will stop working for a couple of hundred years, while the magnetic pole shifts to the south ... the all the arrows will point the other way. - this happens every 60,000 years or so, I believe).

However, that homo sapiens have discovered how to convert the stored energy in fossil fuels is *affecting* the natural process of climate change in an unnatural way. To combine the increased, and unnatural, output of CO2 with what might occur naturally, with the increased demands a global population that has tripled in the 150 years we since we have discovered fossil fuels is to invite problems. Those problems may become insurmountable. At which point, our survival should be questioned.

I am quite certain that the every civilization thought that it would survive for ever. And if different species throughout the planets history could be surveyed, I bet most of those species would think that nothing would effect their grand rule of the planet either.

Mike


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jun 18, 2004)

> We will probably survive. We will also adjust to it.


 Really?  How?  Is it perfectly fine that some people lose their native lands entirely - i.e. islands disappearing?  

I tend to take natural selection pretty seriously.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jun 18, 2004)

StraightRazor said:
			
		

> The "scientists" that BUILT computers were so sure about Y2K.
> I dont know if I can accept that they have enough real knowledge about natural systems for me to get all twisted about a new ice age.




Going into Y2K the computer scientists I knew were all pretty calm about the whole thing.  City officials (here, anyway) were concerned, but not panicky.

The disaster scenarios weren't propogated by scientists, but by conspiracy theorists and paranoids who were writing books and buying duct tape by the truckload.

Insofar as the mini-ice age scenario...it will happen.  It isn't speculative, they know for a fact the Great Ocean Conveyor is shutting down.  But, as with Y2K, it isn't going to be the disaster many envision.  The Eastern seaboard and Europe are going to get very, very cold here in about twenty years...but we're not going to see snow storms in New Dehli, and New York isn't going to be buried in ice.

Global warming is a very real phenomenon.  It isn't a hypothesis.  The Ross Ice shelf is disintergrating.  The polar caps are shrinking.  In fifty years there might be a "Northwest Passage" from New York to Russia.  And as Mike pointed out, beachfront property lines are going to move somewhat inland.

If I live to be seventy, I should see the beginning of this.


Oh, and Cobra, it isn't going to take thousands or millions of years for the polar caps to melt.  Do a Google search and you'll find pictures of the North Pole in 1970 compared to today.  The text in the photo I saw said a ten percent reduction in ice...it looked more like a third.  The North Pole is turning into slush.  


Try it.  Do a Google search on "global warming" and "Ross Ice Shelf".


Regards,


Steve


----------



## jeffbeish (Jun 18, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Much of the polar ice cap is on land (although the north pole does not have land) ... Canada, Greenland, Russia, and in the south, Antarctica. As that Ice melts, the liquid form of water will be added to the oceans. This could lead to changes in ocean level and alterations of the ocean currents.
> 
> Changes in the ocean levels will destroy low-lying land masses around the globe (the outer banks of North & South Carolina, Florida). Many of our cities are built on the waterfronts, what happens if the ocean levels rise, say 6 feet ... 12 feet? Might that affect your beach front property?
> 
> ...



You are certainly a product of the failed education system.  
LINK REMOVED


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 18, 2004)

jeffbeish said:
			
		

> You are certainly a product of the failed education system.


Based on what are you making this statement?

Curiously, Michael


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jun 18, 2004)

Michael, you are more kind than I.



> You are certainly a product of the failed education system.


Jeff, get your s**t together and argue facts and research.  Comments like this are unproductive, silly, and pointless.


----------



## Cobra (Jun 18, 2004)

Even if an ice age happens very quickly, humans are very adaptable creatures. Dinos where just too big and they were not nearly as smart as humans were. If it does happen, we will survive through it.

In any case, the previous ice ages have only happend in the North, right? That means places like South America, Africa, India, or Australia won't be effected so our species will never go. Even if it was to happen right NOW really quickly the and the ice flows over our place in a few seconds, there will be people still living in the South.


----------



## MisterMike (Jun 18, 2004)

Just how cold does it get? Does anyone remember from the last one?


----------



## Andi (Jun 18, 2004)

jeffbeish said:
			
		

> Let me ask, what will happen if the north polar cap melts?


 







Here's a diagram showing the fluctuation of sea level over the last 30 million years. As far as I'm aware, the ice caps did not melt completely at any point during this time. Clearly, sea level changes of several hundred metres are possible. 

I'm not suggesting this could happen overnight, but how disastrous would even a rise of ten metres be? Holland? Bangladesh? East Anglia? Florida?




			
				someguy said:
			
		

> There have been times when the Earth has had much more CO2 in the atmosphere. An example of this would be the formation of the Decan plateau. We will probably survive. We will also adjust to it.


 
If you remember, the outpouring of the Deccan Traps coincided with one of the greatest (and most hyped) extinctions of all time. Most geologists are convinced the two are related. 

If that happened...of course some could survive. But it could be trickier to sustain our population with that kind of thing going on than you might think. Although I don't think we're due for a flood of lava any time soon, so no worries there.




			
				Cobra said:
			
		

> In any case, the previous ice ages have only happend in the North, right? That means places like South America, Africa, India, or Australia won't be effected so our species will never go.


 
The only reason the ice ages were felt more acutely in the North is because that's where all the land is. If you shoved a few continents a bit further south, it would be more obvious that the same thing happened.




> Even if it was to happen right NOW really quickly the and the ice flows over our place in a few seconds, there will be people still living in the South.


 
If there is a sea level rise, do you seriously think that the North half of the sea will rise and start flooding everywhere and the South half will just stay where it is? The sea's not too fussy about where it floods.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jun 18, 2004)

> In any case, the previous ice ages have only happend in the North, right? That means places like South America, Africa, India, or Australia won't be effected so our species will never go.


I am trying to find out more about the past "Ice Ages".  While glaciers don't cover the entire globe, apparently the increased ice mass leads to colder air temperatures around the globe, and a more desert-like environment.



> Just how cold does it get? Does anyone remember from the last one?


ha ha - there are estimates in different research programs.  I will try to find some links.  I'm sure if you looked around online, you could find websites with estimates.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jun 18, 2004)

Cobra said:
			
		

> Even if an ice age happens very quickly, humans are very adaptable creatures. Dinos where just too big and they were not nearly as smart as humans were. If it does happen, we will survive through it.



Define "survive".

Let's forget the nasty cold and ice of the mini-ice age.  Try to put aside for a moment the zippy special effects of "The Day After Tomorrow" and consider, if you will, weather fluctuations of a more mild nature.

Envision, now worldwide crop failures.  Picture drastic drops in fish stocks.  We're going to have famine. 

I want you also imagine this happening in the age of your children, Cobra.  You have kids?  I have one.  This is going to drop into HIS lap.  At 47 I suppose I'll be a grandpa one of these days...I'm certainly old enough now.  By the time my grandkid as yet unborn grandkid is of age the effects of this are going to be going full swing.

Now, as a species, we'll probably "survive" it.  I agree as far as that goes.  In doing so we need to consider that the level of human suffering may be on a scale never witnessed before.  Our kids and grandkids are not going to get blitzed like in the movie, with tidal surges washing into New York.  They're going to starve.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 18, 2004)

Cobra said:
			
		

> Even if an ice age happens very quickly, humans are very adaptable creatures. Dinos where just too big and they were not nearly as smart as humans were.


Hey Cobra ... Do you have any idea how long the dinosaurs were alive and thriving on the surface of this planet? I'll give you a few minutes to go check, go ahead .... use the internet .... look it up.

OK .. now ... how long is it that Homo Sapiens have walked the earth? You may need to look that one up too ... it's OK.

In my wildest dreams I can hope that our species shall be as successful as our (possibly) cold blooded predecessors.

<chuckling> Mike


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 18, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Just how cold does it get? Does anyone remember from the last one?


A quick look about the web indicates during a period of 'Glaciation', the average tempurature drop is between 5 and 8 degrees Celcius. Doesn't sound like much, but as an average, it does allow for a period of 'Glaciation'. 

Let's put it in perspective.

An average drop of 5 degrees C would be:

Bad for the size of Bass (they only get bigger in warm water)
Good for the population of trout (they like colder water, it holds more desolved Oxygen).

Mike


----------



## MisterMike (Jun 18, 2004)

5 - 8 degrees C??? That's it? I was hoping I could unplug my fridge...although, if there's a glacier in the back yard...


----------



## mj-hi-yah (Jun 18, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Jeff, get your s**t together and argue facts and research. Comments like this are unproductive, silly, and pointless.


 Perfect screen name!    The feisty part anyway from what I can see...

Feisty Mouse what do you know of the effects of the thinning ozone layer?  I worry about my kids being in the sun these days.  Is this a result of global warming, or a symptom of it?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 18, 2004)

Maybe you can give me a shot at this one too...

Global warming and Ozone Depletion have little to do with each other, other then that they are both caused by industry.  Ozone Depletion is MUCH more dangerous then global warming though.  Increased amounts of UV radation would be deadly to life on this planet and it takes over 100 years to work cfcs out of the atmosphere.  Fortunately, there has been a lot of progress on this issue.  The UN banned CFC use in the 1990's I believe because people were able to come together and see this threat clearly.  Also, technology to provide alternatives for CFCs was more readily available at the time of the ban.  

Global warming, on the other hand, is a much trickier issue.  Recently, it has been highly politicized with a fossil fuel president in the oval office.  And considering the state of today's politics, I can't see anyone listening to reason anytime soon.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jun 18, 2004)

Maybe, I am way out of line and also out in left field, yet here is what I am thinking.

Education is good. Go read up about it and also read both sides of the arguement.

Now, I  agree that we should worry about or resources and also the future of the planet. Yet, just because you buy a hybrid vehicle does not make it better for the ecology. It is better, to turn lights of, keep the house colder in the winter and hotter in the summer. Install an programable thermostat for time settings. Buy high efficient light bulbs, you may pay more for them yet you are helping out right? Hybrid are not all what they are cracked upto. A major producer of one today is facing invstigations about to high of EMC, on the level of 125 to 135 MilliGuass and the groin and hip area, and  about 100 to 120 mG in the head and shoulder areas. This is a long term helth concern as well. Also, once these vehicles brake , they are really hard to get working right again. Just from feedback from people I have talked. They love their vehicles until something goes wrong. I agree that we need to build them and work out the bugs, just realize that there will be bugs, and not the prefect solution. About 60% of the energy plant in the US burn sulfur coal. Sulfur has been removed from the gasoline of today. So, this is much more damaging to the ecology then just a vehicle. On an electric vehicle , the tail pipr emissions are zero, so you have a local isolation that is better, yet the over all picture is worse. More polution is created in the genreation of the electricity then in burning the gasoline. Once again, I think research needs to continue here. Fuel cells or Hydrogen based vehicles have the range that natural gas vehicle do not. The problem is the inefficiencies in creating the hydrogen and transporting it, and then in the converstion  back into energy to move the vehicle (* about 40 to 60 % efficient *). Yet, if research is not done, then no progress will occur.

Once again research the system you think is helping. Do not sub optimize, for in doing so you may have created complexities in the whole system not there before.


As to the sea level. I agree it would be bad for the coastal areas to flood. Yet, I have been thinking about this today, and I would like to just throw this out there. Get two ice cube trays. Fill one with cold water.  Fill the other one with hot water.  Check later, and see what happened? The cold water will expand and take up more volume, then the cold water. This makes me thing that the melting of the Artic, which is displacing water with its' volume would not be as bad as it is thought to be. It would still be bad, just not as bad. Take a look at the hot water tray. The ice cubes will be smaller than the cold tray and also should be below the water level when put in? Why is this?  Second experiment. Place a bunch of super bouce balls into a large jar. Fill the jar about one quarter to one third. When the jar is at rest the balls only take up a certain volume. Whe you shake the  jar you have heated up the system or put energy into the system. The volume of the balls would seem to be much closer to that of the jar itself. Imagine that the balls are water molecules. So, if you have a jar full of "hot" bounce balls and a jar full of cold bounce balls, then when they system had been brought to rest, or the energy stabilizes to that of the surrounding environment, you will see that the cold jar is fuller than the hot jar. I mention this to avoid the arguement ice does not displace more volume in solid than in liquid, For someone would have noticed this in real life. 

So, as the Artic melts which has no land mass, it is solid ice, it will not necessarily cause as large a rise in the sea level as expected.

To see what I mean by this take a glass and fill it half way with water, then add ice to fill the glass. Let sit, then measure the level of the water after the ice has melted. It will be lower than when the ice was present.

Now, to the antartic:

The ice in sheets in the bays would have the same results as the artic. Yet, the ice on the land mass will run off and enter into system. This ice/water was not displacing volume previously. This is the concern, for where most of that damage to the ecology will occur. So, the fact that the sheets have heated and colded and some are breaking off, now does not scare me. What does bother me, though is the decrease in depth of the glaciers on the land mass of Antartica.


Just a simple way of trying to explain what I see, using basic physics and earth science.  So fire away, since I know some will think that I am in the bleachers on this one.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jun 18, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Maybe you can give me a shot at this one too...
> 
> Global warming and Ozone Depletion have little to do with each other, other then that they are both caused by industry.  Ozone Depletion is MUCH more dangerous then global warming though.  Increased amounts of UV radation would be deadly to life on this planet and it takes over 100 years to work cfcs out of the atmosphere.  Fortunately, there has been a lot of progress on this issue.  The UN banned CFC use in the 1990's I believe because people were able to come together and see this threat clearly.  Also, technology to provide alternatives for CFCs was more readily available at the time of the ban.
> 
> Global warming, on the other hand, is a much trickier issue.  Recently, it has been highly politicized with a fossil fuel president in the oval office.  And considering the state of today's politics, I can't see anyone listening to reason anytime soon.




Yes, the old refrigerent CFC or ChlorFlouroCarbons, were banned in the late 1990's.

As to UV, maybe this will cause more mutation, and increase the rate of evolution?  Thoughts?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 18, 2004)

Most mutations are deadly.  Only a small amount of mutations are actually benificial.


----------



## mj-hi-yah (Jun 18, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Maybe you can give me a shot at this one too...


 Of course :asian: ...



> Global warming and Ozone Depletion have little to do with each other, other then that they are both caused by industry. Ozone Depletion is MUCH more dangerous then global warming though. Increased amounts of UV radation would be deadly to life on this planet and it takes over 100 years to work cfcs out of the atmosphere. Fortunately, there has been a lot of progress on this issue. The UN banned CFC use in the 1990's I believe because people were able to come together and see this threat clearly. Also, technology to provide alternatives for CFCs was more readily available at the time of the ban.


 Thanks for the clarification.  I remember the ban on hairsprays made with CFCs as one example.  It's great that there's been progress, but do you notice how many people seem to be diagnosed with skin cancer these days?  I know three people in their thirties who've been diagnosed with melanoma, and many more than that with basal cell cancers.  It's scary, and I can't help but attribute it to environmental factors.  I saw a special about a town in Australia where all the children had to wear big brimmed hats for protection from the sun.  It seems to me that people are burning more easily as a result of the ozone depletion.  



> Global warming, on the other hand, is a much trickier issue. Recently, it has been highly politicized with a fossil fuel president in the oval office. And considering the state of today's politics, I can't see anyone listening to reason anytime soon.


I recently read that there were energy efficient cars that some people really liked using and they were leasing them and would be given the option to buy when the leases were up.  Instead the company that made the cars, (I can't remember which one) found it wasn't cost effective to maintain them so when the people brought in the cars at the end of the lease period, intending to purchase them, they were told that they would not be permitted to do so and the cars were to be collected and crushed.  What a waste, and as such, I suppose that in the long run probably more harmful to the environment.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 18, 2004)

If you look at this site 

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/mlo144e.pdf 

This graph clearly shows an increase in CO^2 levels since 1958. The short up and down movements on the graph show a phenomenon known in the northern hemisphere known as winter. People are burning fuel to keep warm. Individually, if you look at the spikes, they rise a little higher each year. This reflects the fact that our population has been rising since 1958. From this information, you can clearly see that carbon dioxide increases are directly related to the activities of humans. 

Carbon Dioxide is a proven greenhouse gas. Its molecular properties clearly show its ability to absorb and emit photons in the IR spectrum. From this information and from information taken at other observatories worldwide, it is clearly a safe assumption that global warming is occurring.
And then if you Look at this site and view all of the observation station's data

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/contents.htm 

It clearly shows that humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and this correlates to graphs showing an increase in temperature. If you look at the Ice Core graphs, you will see that natural CO^2 fluctuations are much more gradual. It takes thousands of years to accomplish what humans have accomplished in 50 years. 

Our current global warming trends cannot be totally attributed to natural causes. The data shows that WE are at least part of this phenomenon.
Not according to this paper, though

http://www.nationalpost.com/financialpost/story.html?id=06C603EF-5B3F-49CF-ACAC-50D9F895E7DE

Or 

http://www.cato.org/dailys/01-13-04-2.html

Both or which cast doubt on the phenomenon of global warming and of its effect upon us.  Yet, a look at the bias behind the issue reveals the source of their objections.  Both organizations are beholden to those with vested interests in maintaining the status quo.  For a look into the bias, check this
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
The questioning is not the problem, yet when those questions are answered with this

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm

And the answers are ignored This type of literature could be the death of science. It is not peer reviewed and it subverts the scientific process by garnering money from thier corporate supporters.  This is no different from the tactics they accuse the other side of using.  Extremist articles on both sides teach us is that we live in a world where screaming and shouting have subverted rational thought. 

There are real environmental problems in our world and these problems could require some very tough sacrifices. Smearing the entirety of environmentalism is nothing but an obvious tactic by those who do not wish to pay the price.  When the data is presented without any ideologic trapping, it pretty much squelches debate. Even a nematode can see the correlation between all of the measuring stations and the rising global temperature. Yet, people persist in believing that nothing is happening...should we honestly be surprised? The dangers of smoking are clear and present and people ignore that too. I guess it just goes to show that logic fails when clever words and shouting are backed by billions of dollars.


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 18, 2004)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Maybe, I am way out of line and also out in left field, yet here is what I am thinking.
> Education is good. Go read up about it and also read both sides of the arguement.
> As to the sea level. I agree it would be bad for the coastal areas to flood. Yet, I have been thinking about this today, and I would like to just throw this out there. Get two ice cube trays. Fill one with cold water. Fill the other one with hot water. Check later, and see what happened? The cold water will expand and take up more volume, then the cold water. This makes me thing that the melting of the Artic, which is displacing water with its' volume would not be as bad as it is thought to be. It would still be bad, just not as bad. Take a look at the hot water tray. The ice cubes will be smaller than the cold tray and also should be below the water level when put in? Why is this? Second experiment. Place a bunch of super bouce balls into a large jar. Fill the jar about one quarter to one third. When the jar is at rest the balls only take up a certain volume. Whe you shake the jar you have heated up the system or put energy into the system. The volume of the balls would seem to be much closer to that of the jar itself. Imagine that the balls are water molecules. So, if you have a jar full of "hot" bounce balls and a jar full of cold bounce balls, then when they system had been brought to rest, or the energy stabilizes to that of the surrounding environment, you will see that the cold jar is fuller than the hot jar. I mention this to avoid the arguement ice does not displace more volume in solid than in liquid, For someone would have noticed this in real life.
> So, as the Artic melts which has no land mass, it is solid ice, it will not necessarily cause as large a rise in the sea level as expected.
> ...


Rich, I am going decline to address your comments on automobile locomotion. Certainly, your knowledge of the internal combustion engine is superior to mine. I have often wondered about the costs, financially and environmentally, about electric automobiles (including the replacement and disposal of batteries - remember, the hybrid vehicles are do not draw from powerplant electricity, but rather through capturing energy while braking).

However, talking about hot water and cold water and glasses and jars filled just doesn't seem to make sense. I've read your thoughts twice now, and am still confused. Very simply, most of the solid H2O on our planet is located on land masses. Yes, there is quite a bit floating around on the top of the oceans; at the north pole, harbors in the arctic and antarctic. But ... most of it is sitting on hilltops, mountians and in glaciers. Once this solid is transformed to liquid, it is going to run downhill until it reaches the lowest level ... which will be in the ocean.

I found this nifty little collection of information on a web site ... I am not speaking to the credibility of these facts:

H2O in the oceans ___________ 97.3% _____ 1.35x10(17) cubic meters
H2O in Polar caps & glaciers_____ 2.1% _____ 29x10(15) cubic meters
H2O (fresh water) underground___0.6% _____ 8.4x10(15) cubic meters
H2O in lakes and rivers__________0.01% _____0.2x10(15) cubic meters
H20 in the atmosphere__________0.001%_____0.013x10(15) cubic meters

If the water in the polar ice caps melted completely, the oceans would rise 73 meters above its present level (200+ feet).

http://www.farmweb.au.com/h2o/h2solar.html

Oh .. and I better post this other thought on a separate message.

Thanks - Mike


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 18, 2004)

While looking for information concerning Global Warming ... I found this page ... be warned ... it is quite scary ...

*








The Invisible Killer
		
Click to expand...

*


> *Dihydrogen monoxide* is colorless, odorless, tasteless, and *kills* uncounted thousands of people every year. Most of these deaths are caused by accidental inhalation of DHMO, but the dangers of *dihydrogen monoxide* do not end there. Prolonged exposure to its solid form causes severe tissue damage. Symptoms of DHMO ingestion can include excessive sweating and urination, and possibly a bloated feeling, nausea, vomiting and body electrolyte imbalance. For those who have become dependent, DHMO withdrawal means certain death.
> 
> 
> *
> ...


 
http://www.circus.com/~no_dhmo/

For those of you who get it ... enjoy - Mike


----------



## mj-hi-yah (Jun 18, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> And the answers are ignored This type of literature could be the death of science. It is not peer reviewed and it subverts the scientific process by garnering money from thier corporate supporters. This is no different from the tactics they accuse the other side of using. Extremist articles on both sides teach us is that we live in a world where screaming and shouting have subverted rational thought.


 Set out to prove something and you will.  Unfortunately it is sometimes up to us to decipher the literature and the statistical validity of research as well.  I took a graduate studies course on that very subject and it was amazing how sometimes "research can be slanted to represent a special interest group's interest.  When the research is funded by a special interest group you should scrutinize and be critical of the results.






> There are real environmental problems in our world and these problems could require some very tough sacrifices. Smearing the entirety of environmentalism is nothing but an obvious tactic by those who do not wish to pay the price. When the data is presented without any ideologic trapping, it pretty much squelches debate. Even a nematode can see the correlation between all of the measuring stations and the rising global temperature. Yet, people persist in believing that nothing is happening...should we honestly be surprised? The dangers of smoking are clear and present and people ignore that too. I guess it just goes to show that logic fails when clever words and shouting are backed by billions of dollars.


 I think it's a matter of turning a deaf ear rather than total ignorance.  Openly admit the problem and you may then have to take action.  Smokers today *have to know* of the dangers.  It's posted everywhere and where I live, permitted in less and less places...it's no different with environmental issues, some people just choose to ignore it. We give money to a couple of environmental groups, and I wonder if it really helps or not, because you are right big business often wins out they have the money and political connections to protect their interests.  We still give...:asian:


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jun 19, 2004)

(nice posts, upnorthkyosa and michaeledwards - those were interesting!)

Minor gank....  



> It's scary, and I can't help but attribute it to environmental factors. I saw a special about a town in Australia where all the children had to wear big brimmed hats for protection from the sun. It seems to me that people are burning more easily as a result of the ozone depletion.


I was a research volunteer for about 4 months in Western Australia years ago.  Right about that time, the big ozone hole over the Antarctic had drifted over to Western Australia (I was on the coast, near the most westernmost point).  Australians have developed a very good public awareness policy and ad campaigns to inform people about the sun.  Aside from heatstroke and other goofiness, a few of us turned kind of purple in the sun - it was sort of a burn, sort of like getting cooked.  There was no point at which we didn't burn - i.e. we didn't get a "base layer" and then tan.  Everyone burned - even the ex-Navy guys who looked like leather.  They burned on top of their leathery, tanned skin.  It was strange. 

A few years ago, thinking back on that time, I got checked out by a dermatologist here and had a few spots removed.  So far I've been fortunate.  But skin cancer is quite a fear there.  And when I was there, it was at its height - people just burned in the sun no matter what.  

The ad campaign was something like, "Slip, slop, slap" - slip on a (long-sleeved) shirt, slop on sunscreen, and slap on a hat.  There were posters around pretty frequently. 






I have a serious sunhat similar to this.  I think everyone who works outside in the sun should have one!

http://www.cancer.org.au/content.cfm?randid=502435


----------



## Cobra (Jun 19, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Hey Cobra ... Do you have any idea how long the dinosaurs were alive and thriving on the surface of this planet? I'll give you a few minutes to go check, go ahead .... use the internet .... look it up.
> 
> OK .. now ... how long is it that Homo Sapiens have walked the earth? You may need to look that one up too ... it's OK.
> 
> ...


Yes I already know how long dinos and humans have been in exsistence (atleast to an athiest's point of view). What makes you think we can't survive as long as the dinosaurs? Sure we are one species, but we are far more different than any other animal that has ever lived. And why is that? Well, everything that we have done is different than others in the past. Has there ever been a species as intelligent as us?

Let's see how dinosaurs got extinct for a moment. Hmm, an astroid from space hits Earth causing the sun the sun to become blocked out. But the sun being blocked out isn't what scientist think ended the dinos. Most dinos were herbavores, meaning without the plants that the dinos ate began to die out, leading to there being no food for dinos. There were some plants which didn't need sunlight, but it wasn't enough for the size of the dinos to keep them alive.

Now let's put this into our situation if an astroid caused a similar effect. Without the sun it would be very cold, but then we have technology to make ourselves warm. Some say dinos are cold-blooded, if that is true right away we see why they couldn't survive the cold times when the sun was blocked out. Then there is food. Of course there might be mass death, but there will be enough for us to eat in the end. Plants in need of no sunlight will be there for us. And there is another thing we have that the dinos didn't have, artificial sunlight. We can then put plants in such lights. I can go on and on.

Now do you see my point? If everything fails, I'm sure we will think of something new. Though I wouldn't want such a bad thing to happen, so I would want people to stop what they are doing to make such a thing to happen. But no man is perfect, so I really can't say it is preventable. But I just want you to see that we can and will adapt to whatever changes that may come our way.


----------



## jeffbeish (Jun 19, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Based on what are you making this statement?
> 
> Curiously, Michael



Well, let's see -- just how much of our north polar cap is on the sea and how much is on land?  Now, it is quite obvious that the educational system that teaches people that the displacement of water is not effected by melting of ice within the body of water -- well, it is a failed system. 

You may also be concerned with the motives of politicians who lie and yell similar phrases as that of Chicken Little, before understanding the basic concepts of science.  For yawl's edification and for anyone interested then you might find out a little science before making statements about the sea rising when the polar caps melt. So far the so-called debate here on G.W. is way out of date and it reminds me of some of the garbage AlGores ghost writers put in this comic book, Earth in Balance.  Total nonsense. However, to argue will people with closed minds is fruitless.

Old Dusty, Ph.D. 

P.S. The sky is not falling and the atmosphere is really doing just fine, and we knew that water existed on Mars now since before I was born many Moons ago.  So, do not put full faith in what NASA publishes without first reading of it's past.


----------



## jeffbeish (Jun 19, 2004)

It amazes me how easily some of you are duped.  I classify the global warming discussions, per say, in the same vain as those people thinking that astronauts changed the climate of this planet by waking on the Moon! Yes, this sentiment is more common that you may think. It is quite disturbing for we astronomers and/or scientists to reply to such charges, because one should consider also their humility.  The debate concerning global warming started off some decades ago and at that time it was thought we were in for an ice age again, by some of the very same people who now yell about the opposite.  One now has to consider that after politicians found out they could profit off this so-called debate they could use propaganda to scare the hell out of their voters so to be reelected again by selling tem on a sure fire cure.  

If there is anything to define the essence of science is that there is no sure fire answer to anything we study, especially if it concerns anything as complex as the behavior of our atmosphere.  Consider that NOAA/NASA launched satellites in 1979 to measure the temperature of our atmosphere.  The satellites measure the entire globe, not just the 60 plus ground-based stations that are located near populated areas, but the entire atmospheric canopy that surrounds the surface of our planet.  These measurements correlate nearly 99% with those measurements from weather balloons and this new method is gaining acceptance more and more.  The general result from the 25 years of surveillance is that the atmosphere from 1/3-km out to 60-km -- the temperature has actually decreased over the Northern Hemisphere!

Now, as I will lecture students on now jumping to conclusions after NASA announces some startling discovery we will have to wait to see if the new technology is valid.  The same holds true of this satellite measuring; however, it replicated that of several other studies of our atmosphere and we may now conclude that it has merit. If one compares this all encompassing method to that of NOAAs older method of locating temperature probes near heat traps (cities) and almost no stations over 7/10ths of this planet  then we must begin to accept the new method, huh?

So, if we were to insert the current ground-based data into the model from the environmental politicians, then the results would be that the temperature of Earth would have already exceeded the actual temperature by at least 10 times that predicted.  Take those ice cubes in a full glass of water then wait for the sky to fall -- I am quit happy to know that our worst fears are those who murder people in the name of Lunar religion.


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 19, 2004)

Cobra said:
			
		

> Now do you see my point?


Yes <chuckling> Cobra, I see your point. 

It is to ignore evidence and if you just 'believe' strongly enough, you can stop gravity from working.

Thanks for participating.


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 19, 2004)

jeffbeish said:
			
		

> Well, let's see -- just how much of our north polar cap is on the sea and how much is on land?


According to one report ... enough water is on land so that if it were to melt, it would result in a net gain in sea level of 73 meters. But you didn't really want an answer to the question, did you?


			
				jeffbeish said:
			
		

> we knew that water existed on Mars now since before I was born many Moons ago.


Ah, yes ... Giovanni Schiaparalli ... 1877 ..... canali ... Those lovely little boats, with oarsmen singing in Italian ....

Got it. Thanks for the input.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 19, 2004)

jeffbeish said:
			
		

> Well, let's see -- just how much of our north polar cap is on the sea and how much is on land?  Now, it is quite obvious that the educational system that teaches people that the displacement of water is not effected by melting of ice within the body of water -- well, it is a failed system.



First off, its not the ocean ice that is the problem.  It's the density difference between salt and freshwater.  This is what will interupt the gulf stream.  

You really don't have a sense of the magnitude or the scope of the amount of water locked up in the continental glaciers until you go there.  When you are standing on the Greenland ice sheet, you are standing on a plate of ice over a mile thick.




			
				jeffbeish said:
			
		

> P.S. The sky is not falling and the atmosphere is really doing just fine, and we knew that water existed on Mars now since before I was born many Moons ago.  So, do not put full faith in what NASA publishes without first reading of it's past.



Witness the success of conservative talk radio.  Clever sounding rhetoric and baseless charges are easy to rattle off in the allotted amount of time for a show.  It takes too long to explain the details of a problem.  Please read some of the links posted and take a look at the data.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jun 19, 2004)

jeffbeish said:
			
		

> Well, let's see -- just how much of our north polar cap is on the sea and how much is on land?  Now, it is quite obvious that the educational system that teaches people that the displacement of water is not effected by melting of ice within the body of water -- well, it is a failed system.




I agree.  It is indeed a deficient system that fails to teach a man to carefully read a post and note that the person drafting it mentioned that only the North Pole lacks land mass, and that much of the ice cap is on land.

Michael wrote:  

_"Much of the polar ice cap is on land (although the north pole does not have land) ... Canada, Greenland, Russia, and in the south, Antarctica. As that Ice melts, the liquid form of water will be added to the oceans. This could lead to changes in ocean level and alterations of the ocean currents."_ 

You seemed to have missed this, Jeff.  I don't know how you missed it, as it was there for all to see...I suspect you missed it because you're a product of our failed educational system.  Your PhD is indeed a tad dusty.

I must say that for a guy your age you show an incredible level of flexibility.  Not many 64 year olds can put their feet into their mouths like you just did.  Bravo!  Keep up the stretching...if not of your mind, then of your hamstrings.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jun 19, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Rich, I am going decline to address your comments on automobile locomotion. Certainly, your knowledge of the internal combustion engine is superior to mine. I have often wondered about the costs, financially and environmentally, about electric automobiles (including the replacement and disposal of batteries - remember, the hybrid vehicles are do not draw from powerplant electricity, but rather through capturing energy while braking).
> 
> However, talking about hot water and cold water and glasses and jars filled just doesn't seem to make sense. I've read your thoughts twice now, and am still confused. Very simply, most of the solid H2O on our planet is located on land masses. Yes, there is quite a bit floating around on the top of the oceans; at the north pole, harbors in the arctic and antarctic. But ... most of it is sitting on hilltops, mountians and in glaciers. Once this solid is transformed to liquid, it is going to run downhill until it reaches the lowest level ... which will be in the ocean.
> 
> ...




Mike,

The Hybrids are intended to obtain regen, or engery on coast owns. They are also intended to capture the same energy from the engine to the generator/alternator device as well as the brakes. Yet, the Brakes are a non-OBD component. So the brakes cannot be used at this time. OBD = On Board Diagnostic. These are items that require by federal law that the Service Engien Soon light or MIL is turned on. oherwise just the ABS light and the (SVS) Service Vehicle Soon light. So, you cannot capure enough as desired. Yet it is a step in teh right direction.  As to battery disposial the E1 by GM was a lease vehicle only. GM offered every customer one free Battery replacement, so that they would bring them back to dealership for proper disposal. This was done to avoid all those law suits of lead entering the enviroment. When the lease was up GM would take the vehicle and dispose of it properly. Jay Lano's only major complaints about the vehicle.

Back to that horrible DiHydrogen MonoOxide.

Take a full glass of ice. Set it in the sun let is melt. Does it fill the glass with water? No, it is less. I am confused by the display of how the last four is all 15 meters.  Now back to the water. What I am trying to state is that the ice in the water today is already in the water level, as it is displacing volume both in the water in above the water level. I would contend that the water level would not rise directly, if the ice melted. Hence the experiement. No the water on land as I pointed out, in the Anartica portion, does rate point out to be 2.1 % of the total water not already into the ocean water system. I contend that the water in the air and the ground and lakes are already in the system as an equalibrium that does flutucate locally. So, a rise of 15 meters is what I was saying would happen not the 73 you mention. (* even though the 73 is not (4 x 15) + 17, hence my confusion.  *) A rise of 15 meteres is about a rise of 48.75 feet. This would be horrible along the coatal areas, including the great lakes. Yet, not quite so bad as the 73 meters.

Just my obtuse thoughts.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jun 19, 2004)

> You may also be concerned with the motives of politicians who lie and yell similar phrases as that of Chicken Little, before understanding the basic concepts of science. For yawl's edification and for anyone interested then you might find out a little science before making statements about the sea rising when the polar caps melt.


Well, that was awfully kind and brilliant of you to not address any of the links or statements posted, but to get on a high horse and talk about "Science" like a pro.

I'm a scientist.  I "understand the basic concepts of science".  Don't pull an academic snob line just to miss addressing the points.  It's in bad taste and pointless.  

For example,



> The general result from the 25 years of surveillance is that the atmosphere from 1/3-km out to 60-km -- the temperature has actually decreased over the Northern Hemisphere!


Has it not already been said that "global warming" really should be stated as "global climate change"?  25 years will show very little, as this is all sampled within the period human activity has already changed the nature of the atmosphere.  You need historical studies - kind of like ones that have already been posted here, which you fail to address in any way.



> Now, as I will lecture students on now jumping to conclusions after NASA announces some startling discovery we will have to wait to see if the new technology is valid. The same holds true of this satellite measuring; however, it replicated that of several other studies of our atmosphere and we may now conclude that it has merit. If one compares this all encompassing method to that of NOAAs older method of locating temperature probes near heat traps (cities) and almost no stations over 7/10ths of this planet  then we must begin to accept the new method, huh?


I sure this is a neat-o method.  Again, we are talking about different data.  When we talk about global climate change, we are talking about data over a far longer period of time, to capture longer trends in climate, rather than the smaller-scale abberations.

An academic snob who won't address the data at hand will, of course, try to sound like they are gaining the high ground.  Fortunately, there are people here in the forum who aren't going to be hoodwinked with someone waving a PhD around like it makes them a prophet.  

And



> Yes I already know how long dinos and humans have been in exsistence (atleast to an athiest's point of view).


Oh, good grief.  If this is a dig at evolutionary theory and religion, get over yourself, kid.  The two are not mutally exclusive.  And that belongs in another thread.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 19, 2004)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Take a full glass of ice. Set it in the sun let is melt. Does it fill the glass with water? No, it is less. I am confused by the display of how the last four is all 15 meters.  Now back to the water. What I am trying to state is that the ice in the water today is already in the water level, as it is displacing volume both in the water in above the water level. I would contend that the water level would not rise directly, if the ice melted. Hence the experiement. No the water on land as I pointed out, in the Anartica portion, does rate point out to be 2.1 % of the total water not already into the ocean water system. I contend that the water in the air and the ground and lakes are already in the system as an equalibrium that does flutucate locally. So, a rise of 15 meters is what I was saying would happen not the 73 you mention. (* even though the 73 is not (4 x 15) + 17, hence my confusion.  *) A rise of 15 meteres is about a rise of 48.75 feet. This would be horrible along the coatal areas, including the great lakes. Yet, not quite so bad as the 73 meters.



50 million years ago, during the Eocene, the global temperature was 26 degrees warmer.  There were global forests in those days - even at the poles.  In fact, the earth probably looked a lot like the moon of Endor.  My point is that there were no ice caps in those days and vast epicratonic seas covered parts of continents that are now dry.  There is the same amount of water on the planet now.


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 19, 2004)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> I am confused by the display of how the last four is all 15 meters.


I believe, Rich, that those are scientific representations of how much H2O there is on the planet.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> H2O in Polar caps & glaciers_____ 2.1% _____ 29x10(15) cubic meters


That is 2.1% of the H20 on the planet is in the polar ice caps and glaciers. This totals 29 x 10 to the 15th power cubic meters.

290,000,000,000,000,000 cubic meters of water.
1 cubic meter of water is approximately 264 gallons.
76,560,000,000,000,000,000 gallons of water currently captured in Polar Caps and Glaciers.
Approximately 90% of this ice is on the continent of Antarctica and the island of Greenland.

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/HannaBerenblit.shtml

Thanks - Mike

P.S. I am just reporting these items as facts ... but I really am just quickly surveying the web to pull the information out there. While I do have pretty strong feelings that most of the Ice on the planet is on Land Masses, I don't know that the volumes mentioned would raise sea levels x amount. But ... it is not the same as ice cubes melting in a glass of water. That is the experiment I did with my 3rd grade daughter 5 years ago. Geesh!.


----------



## Taimishu (Jun 19, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> While looking for information concerning Global Warming ... I found this page ... be warned ... it is quite scary ...
> 
> *
> 
> ...


* 
Who's kidding Who?
Dihydrogen monoxide = H2O =water.
Nice try but no prize.

David*


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jun 19, 2004)

I think it was intended as a joke.


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 19, 2004)

Taimishu said:
			
		

> Who's kidding Who?
> Dihydrogen monoxide = H2O =water.
> Nice try but no prize.
> 
> David


 

David, I heard somewhere that 'Beauty fades, but dumb is forever'.



			
				the Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide web site said:
			
		

> What you don't know *can* hurt you and others throughout the world.


Again, "For those of you that get it ... Enjoy!" - Mike


----------



## someguy (Jun 19, 2004)

Either human will survive or they die out.  If humans die out completely then it won't matter much.  It's just speeding up the inevitable.
So at what temperature did the figures you used go with michaeledward.  Water at 80 degrees takes less space for its volume than water at 32 degrees as I recall.  So do the figures take into account the differences in temperature or not.
Gah I'm scared of water now.  Oh no.  I won't drink any more ever that will keep me safe...


----------



## Cobra (Jun 19, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Yes <chuckling> Cobra, I see your point.
> 
> It is to ignore evidence and if you just 'believe' strongly enough, you can stop gravity from working.
> 
> Thanks for participating.


Gravity wasn't what killed the dinosaurs. Food shortages and a combination of other things ended them. We can already blow up astroids with nuclear power, preventing a big disaster. I'm sure we can do something to help us if we were to ever enter an ice age.

Also remeber that not all life died when the astroid hit, you really think all 6 billion people would all of a sudden disappear out of one event.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jun 19, 2004)

(in gentle, "inside" voice)

Cobra, you seem to place a lot of faith in technology.  Granted, we have some amazing technological capabilities.  
We rely, however, on natural systems to take care of us.  How many people can you feed with your plants that don't need light, for example?  We benefit from natural ecosystems to support our lives and our technologies.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 19, 2004)

Its amazing how people can throw insults at each other over almost every topic.


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 19, 2004)

Cobra said:
			
		

> We can already blow up astroids with nuclear power, preventing a big disaster.


1. You need to see a space body approaching earth in order to be able to do anything about it. In all probability, we will not see it coming. If we do, it will be with very short notice.

2. Detonating a nuclear weapon on an object in space will have the result of changing one large object into many small objects. The net result would be even worse... because we would not be changing the contiguous mass of the object from, let's say 10 miles in diameter into billions of little grains of sand (which might burn up in the atmosphere). But rather into 42 objects 1 mile in diameter.

Cobra, if you are going to watch science fiction, at least watch Star Trek, where they attempt to get the science part of it correct. As a hint ... don't trust Bruce Willis as your science advisor.

Mike


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jun 19, 2004)

> As a hint ... don't trust Bruce Willis as your science advisor.


 :roflmao:


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 19, 2004)

someguy said:
			
		

> So at what temperature did the figures you used go with michaeledward. Water at 80 degrees takes less *space* for its *volume* than water at 32 degrees as I recall. So do the figures take into account the differences in temperature or not.


First 'space' and 'volume', as you use them in this statement are synonyms. They mean the same thing. --- from m-w.com Volume *3* *:* the amount of space occupied by a three-dimensional object as measured in cubic units 

Actually, *liquid* H2O at 80 degrees would have slightly more volume than *liquid* H2O at 32 degrees. When matter warms, it expands. 
H20 in a *solid* form (ICE) is unusual in that it does have a greater volume than liquid H20 (I think most other compounds behave opposite). Remember that the solid form of H2O may be at 32 degrees or it may be colder.

Regardless of the temperature, the problem is going to be when the H2O changes from solid to liquid (the definition of this phase transition is 'Melt'). Today 90% of the *solid* H2O on the planet is located *on the land* masses of Antartica and Greenland. When the solid H2O melts to liquid H2O, gravity will draw the liquid (which can move relatively freely) down to the lowest available level: sea-level. When you add liquid water to the ocean, the level of the ocean must rise.

I hope this helps explain why the temperature of the H2O is not relevant to the discussion.

Thanks for contributing. - Mike


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jun 19, 2004)

Cobra said:
			
		

> We can already blow up astroids with nuclear power, preventing a big disaster.



I absolutely agree, Cobra.  WE CAN.

The tough part is getting Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck to go do it a second time.  

While they're up there, though, I am seriously MOVING in on Liv during her lonely time of need.

Cobra, don't confuse science fiction for science fact.  It has never been documented that we can blow up an asteroid with a nuke...whether its placed aboard a souped up Space Shuttle or attached to a Saturn 5 rocket.  I always wondered how they got that blast effect in space.

If I'm wrong here, please post a link...because if I'm wrong I'll admit it and appreciate the update in my cranial database.

Regards,

Steve


----------



## Taimishu (Jun 19, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> I think it was intended as a joke.


I know and I thought it was about as funny as a rubber crutch.

David


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jun 19, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Its amazing how people can throw insults at each other over almost every topic.





Hey, its an election year.  We're just following the lead of our candidates.




Regards,



Steve


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jun 19, 2004)

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Feisty Mouse*
> _I think it was intended as a joke._
> 
> I know and I thought it was about as funny as a rubber crutch.


My apologies - your previous post seemed to indicate you thought it was serious.  

Although I hardly think it was as nasty as a rubber crutch.  I appreciate geek humor.


----------



## Cobra (Jun 19, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> 1. You need to see a space body approaching earth in order to be able to do anything about it. In all probability, we will not see it coming. If we do, it will be with very short notice.
> 
> 2. Detonating a nuclear weapon on an object in space will have the result of changing one large object into many small objects. The net result would be even worse... because we would not be changing the contiguous mass of the object from, let's say 10 miles in diameter into billions of little grains of sand (which might burn up in the atmosphere). But rather into 42 objects 1 mile in diameter.
> 
> ...


Scientists will always watch. Do you, or anybody else remember an year ago I think was it on the news scientists reproted an astroid is heading right for us? They say it will reach Earth at around 500,000 years. Not the correct number, but it was around there. Though they say it might steer off course, you can see that we really see that far can. 

Scientist have also predicted are twin galaxy, the vergo cluster will colide with our Milky Way in about 100 billion years. I well think we can survive most things.

Oh and if you don't believe a Nuclear Warhead can't destroy an astroid, then I'm not sure you know what you are talking about. We have enough Nuclear warheads to blow up the world 20 times over (many experts say).


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 19, 2004)

Cobra said:
			
		

> Scientists will always watch. Do you, or anybody else remember an year ago I think was it on the news scientists reproted an astroid is heading right for us? They say it will reach Earth at around 500,000 years. Not the correct number, but it was around there. Though they say it might steer off course, you can see that we really see that far can.


That idea works wonderful for those objects that are in a nice, predictable orbit. Halley's Comet is one example; every 76 years, it shows up. But many objects in the Oort cloud can be pulled toward the inner solar system in an unpredictable manner. ... then what?

Well, perhaps if you research what we know about planetary collisions, you will better understand. Please see this site for a detailed description of the marvelous once-in-a-lifetime (I hope) of planetary impact by a large interstellar object: Shoemaker Levy 9. This object struck Jupiter in 1994.

http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/sl9/



			
				Cobra said:
			
		

> Scientist have also predicted are twin galaxy, the vergo cluster will colide with our Milky Way in about 100 billion years. I well think we can survive most things.


Yes, all matter is moving through space. It is quite possible for two galaxies to have intersecting trajectories. NASA has some photos of just such events here.
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/galaxies/colliding.html

However, the vast majority of a Galaxy is made up of empty space, so the most you get is some strange Gravitational effects, and sometimes a new, larger galaxy. It really isn't that strange in a wonderful universe.



			
				Cobra said:
			
		

> Oh and if you don't believe a Nuclear Warhead can't destroy an astroid, then I'm not sure you know what you are talking about. We have enough Nuclear warheads to blow up the world 20 times over (many experts say).


I do not believe a nuclear warhead can destroy an asteroid. Yes, in a nuclear explosion matter is converted to energy ... but it is a very small amount of matter that goes through this transition (E=mc2 --- ah, that is Energy equals Mass times the Speed of Light Squared).

When experts tell us that we can blow up the world 20 times over, what they mean is that we have enough weaponry to destroy all of the living people on earth 20 times over. Even if we detonated the world's entire nuclear arsenal at one place, at one time (Ground Zero), It wouldn't even effect Earth's Orbit around the sun ... much less destroy the planet.

Sorry Charlie

Mike


----------



## Kane (Jun 19, 2004)

Cobra said:
			
		

> Scientists will always watch. Do you, or anybody else remember an year ago I think was it on the news scientists reproted an astroid is heading right for us? They say it will reach Earth at around 500,000 years. Not the correct number, but it was around there. Though they say it might steer off course, you can see that we really see that far can.
> 
> Scientist have also predicted are twin galaxy, the vergo cluster will colide with our Milky Way in about 100 billion years. I well think we can survive most things.
> 
> Oh and if you don't believe a Nuclear Warhead can't destroy an astroid, then I'm not sure you know what you are talking about. We have enough Nuclear warheads to blow up the world 20 times over (many experts say).


I hear you Cobra, even if we can survive do we really want mass death? If we keep some of the things we are doing now, we will get an ice age soon. Or even if it an ice age comes a long time from now, would you want your great grandson to experiance hardships? That is why we have to prevent such a thing from happening as soon as possible. Even if the ice age comes 1,000 years, we need to make so it would come in 10,000 years.


----------



## Guro Harold (Jun 19, 2004)

Hi Kane,

Welcome to MartialTalk!!!

You have a good point that sometimes we need to think about how our actions will affect our children after us.

Best regards,

Palusut


----------



## StraightRazor (Jun 19, 2004)

The question is, how much change to our society, economy and so on do we do about "global warming". How much upheaval and change should we go through for something that that cant be solidly proven?


----------



## jeffbeish (Jun 20, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Well, that was awfully kind and brilliant of you to not address any of the links or statements posted, but to get on a high horse and talk about "Science" like a pro.
> 
> I'm a scientist.  I "understand the basic concepts of science".  Don't pull an academic snob line just to miss addressing the points.  It's in bad taste and pointless.
> 
> ...



Well, as expected you expose yourself the phony in both Martial Arts and in the professional community.  When you mature come back.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jun 20, 2004)

StraightRazor said:
			
		

> The question is, how much change to our society, economy and so on do we do about "global warming". How much upheaval and change should we go through for something that that cant be solidly proven?






The weight of the data indicates that it IS happening.  To date, given that the vast majority of research indicates that THIS correlation does indeed equal causation, it would strike me as foolish to dismiss it out of hand.

The upheaval and change you refer to is doable.  The oil and auto industries (among more than few) are dragging their feet because it will be an expensive proposition, and one cutting into profits.  Then there is inertia...changing a lifestyle to which we've become accustomed.  It is far, far easier to bury one's head in the sand.  

There was talk of switching to renewables...and danged if I didn't hear some well placed Texan say just awhile back that we were going to end our dependence on foreign oil...I'm waaaaiting.

The Great Ocean Conveyor should be pretty much whacked in twenty years, and it should be fairly cold in New York and Great Britain by then.  Shall we table this discussion until then, when we have more "evidence"?  I should still be around at the age of 67.  Jeff Beish will be, if he's around, 84...probably safe to say it doesn't concern him as much.  Maybe we can invite his grandkid in on the discussion.

Oddly, Al Qaida might have a lasting effect on the issue.  Their murder of Johnson...about as gruesome as it gets...is causing a flood of foreign expats to flee Saudi (and maybe in the future other oil countries).  This is going to put a real crimp on future Saudi oil production.  They have the skill to bring it out of the ground...they don't have the skill to find new sources.

I suspect prices will go up in about five years to a fairly painful level.  Just guessing.  They're fairly painful now.  Filling a Ford Focus costs about twenty bucks.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jun 20, 2004)

jeffbeish said:
			
		

> Well, as expected you expose yourself the phony in both Martial Arts and in the professional community.  When you mature come back.



Okay, freak.  Gloves are off.  I pray to the Mods that they forgive me for what I'm about to do...but this demands action and the full indignation I am capable of mustering...which is substantial, as many of you noted.

Jeff, Feisty Mouse is both a scientist AND a martial artist.  You have nothing to indicate that she's exposed herself as a fraud in either area.  She can document her training in both...and I suppose will, if asked.  Okay...I'm asking her to.  I invite others on this board who may know her to back her up.

She's called you on your post after you launched an ad hominem attack on Michael...and for good reason, as the attack was illconceived and unwarranted.  

She's backed up every thing she's written with reasoned arguments. You, however, set yourself up by infusing your posts with a tone pressing the very heights of condescension and arrogance.  Arrogance demands intellectual talent.  In this last qualification you are lacking.

It is not overboard, given the above statement on your part, to say you are a curmudgeonly bigoted bully who can do nothing more than post snotty little swipes at a person's character, in this case a young woman who has contributed some worthwhile observations to this board.  Attacking her in this fashion is far easier than attacking her ideas...whose weight or reasoning clearly overwhelms you.  

I groan with the weight of knowing that the above quote, so infantile, so absolutely childishly phrased in its impotence and frustration, was drafted by a 64 year old veteran who claims to have a PhD.

With acidulous ardor,


Steve


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jun 20, 2004)

DiHydrogen MonoOxide is truly H2O.

This was a letter that went around about how it was easy to get people to think bad things about anything, if you put it in the right light. i.e. Too much of anything is bad. Used inappropirately it is bad. Some people have used it to defend large companies that say their products are fine and safe, just that people use them wrong or incorrectly, or take too much. Not their fault, for even Water can be dangerous with too much in the body or in a local enviorment.

I hope no one is too bent out of shape about this to continue this discussion.

 :asian:


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jun 20, 2004)

> Well, as expected you expose yourself the phony in both Martial Arts and in the professional community. When you mature come back.


:roflmao: 


Again, thanks for not addressing any of the arguments or points that are trying to be made. You made my point for me, again. 

Sure, name-calling and telling me to get off the boards is going to get rid of me - and my (and other people's) arguments. Just because you can't reply in kind doesn't mean telling me to get lost will solve anything.

I've had a lot worse insults slung at me by people who don't know what to do with a woman who can think, and can fight. Boo hoo! Now I'll have to run away because some man called me names! lol 

And I would like to say Thanks to Hardheadjarhead for sticking up for me while I was off the boards. That is very very kind. :ladysman: 

Perhaps Jeff would like to present HIS credentials as well? Since it seems to be deteriorating to that. I don't think anyone needs a PhD to use calm reason, and to work through other people's research, or a problem. Having a degree in, say, English or Art History doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to understand the global climate change concepts and evidence. 

And, pray tell, how does my vehement disagreeing with you and your non-arguments mean I am not a good martial artist? Are you... PSYCHIC?!?! Wow. I had no idea.

ETA: Nice post Rich, I hope this discussion can continue


----------



## tshadowchaser (Jun 20, 2004)

Lets get back on subjct.


Mod. Note. 
Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.
Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.
Sheldon Bedell-MT Moderator-


----------



## Kane (Jun 20, 2004)

Actually, there is a chance we might not have to worry about Global Warming. I did a little more research on this, and I found more than half the population of scietists don't believe in Global Warming. So there is a more or less chance it might happen. 

Still, it doesn't hurt to take pre-cautions.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jun 20, 2004)

> I did a little more research on this, and I found more than half the population of scietists don't believe in Global Warming.


 Really?  Where did you find this?


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 20, 2004)

Kane said:
			
		

> I did a little more research on this, and I found more than half the population of scietists don't believe in Global Warming.


Please post your research, so that I may review it. I am always interested in learning new things. And I am always open to change my opinion when presented with evidence.


----------



## Taimishu (Jun 20, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> My apologies - your previous post seemed to indicate you thought it was serious.
> 
> Although I hardly think it was as nasty as a rubber crutch. I appreciate geek humor.


Yeah sorry mouse.
How about as funny as klingfilm under the toilet seat?

David


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jun 20, 2004)

> How about as funny as klingfilm under the toilet seat?


lol!!


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jun 20, 2004)

How about this idea:

Let's everybody keep driving SUVs.  That way we can promote global warming and help fund terrorism all at the same time!


----------



## TigerWoman (Jun 20, 2004)

We in Minnesota could certainly use some global warming.  Its nearly the fourth of July and its 62° out today. Brrrrrr....yeah, I'm still a Californian after being here twelve years. TW


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jun 20, 2004)

Skeptics of the Global Warming theory include Robert Balling and Patrick Michaels, who co-wrote _The Satanic Gases: Clearing the air about Global Warming_.  Balling is the director of the Office of Climatology at Arizona State, University.  Michaels is a professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virgina and is a senior fellow at the "far right" think tank, the Cato Institute.  Others that speak out against the theory are people like Sallie Baliunas, who is one of several spokespeople for the anti-Kyoto Protocol _Competitive Enterprise Institute._

Senator James Inhofe (Rep. OK), thinks that global warming is a hoax.  He is chairman of the senate environmental  committee, and has come under criticism for unfairly packing hearings with the few remaining skeptics on the issue.

Inspite of these few wannabe gadflys, 2,500 scientists from 100 nations instituted the 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  They stated that we need to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 60% within 25 years or face a 1.4-5.8 C average increase in temperature worldwide.  Studies since then have indicated they underestimated the problem.

The United Nation's World Meteorological Organization recorded history's four hottest years since records were first kept in the 1860's.  They were, in order: 1998, 2002, 2003, 2001.  The WMO's Kenneth Davidson said in a press 2002 conference, "Clearly, for the past 25 or 26 years, the warming is accelerating.  The rate of increase is unprecedented in the last 1000 years. 

The *Pentagon* (of all places) commissioned a study of the effects of Global Warming.  It was on line awhile back, and had maps of projected flooding of coastal areas.  So, apparently the generals in the upper echelons of the military buy into it.

Try as I might, I couldn't find where half of all scientists are skeptical of global warming.  That handful that are seem to be in the thrall of special interest groups.

I gleaned this off of several articles on the net.  Google "Global warming skeptics" for some interesting links.

Regards,


Steve


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 20, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Try as I might, I couldn't find where half of all scientists are skeptical of global warming. That handful that are seem to be in the thrall of special interest groups.


That too has been my experience. Many Many Many scientists believe that human activity is having an effect on the climate accross the globe. I have seen and heard of the occassional scientist that believes that Global Climate Change is not occuring.

I have never seen any studies that list believers and non-believers as percentages.

And ... cigaretts are not addictive and they don't create health issues.

Mike


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jun 20, 2004)

Tiger woman, be prepared to be colder.  North America is going to go through a mini-ice age here fairly soon, a paradoxical result of Global Warming.  I was under the impression that only the Eastern seaboard of the U.S. is going to get hit...but apparently it will be farther west than that.

Average temperatures worldwide will go up...but its going to be COLD in New York come Christmas 2020.

I'm looking at land in Arizona right now....



Regards,

Steve


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jun 20, 2004)

I need to apologize for referring to the Cato Institute as "far right".  Having just been to their web site, I find them to be more Libertarian in nature.  

I pulled the "far right" line from the article I read.  While very pro-business (referring to themselves as "Market Liberals"), they seem to espouse a very tolerant attitude towards the social issues pressing today.

Fascinating web site...I encourage others to check it out.

Regards,


Steve


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jun 20, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Skeptics of the Global Warming theory include Robert Balling and Patrick Michaels, who co-wrote _The Satanic Gases: Clearing the air about Global Warming_.  Balling is the director of the Office of Climatology at Arizona State, University.  Michaels is a professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virgina and is a senior fellow at the "far right" think tank, the Cato Institute.  Others that speak out against the theory are people like Sallie Baliunas, who is one of several spokespeople for the anti-Kyoto Protocol _Competitive Enterprise Institute._
> 
> Senator James Inhofe (Rep. OK), thinks that global warming is a hoax.  He is chairman of the senate environmental  committee, and has come under criticism for unfairly packing hearings with the few remaining skeptics on the issue.
> 
> ...




Steve et al,

Global warming is an issue. The emission coming out of the vehicles today is a great improvement from just 10 years ago let alone 20 or 30 years ago. Yet, the emissions may have decreased the CO and NO and unburned hydrocarbons, it has increased the about of CO2 and H2O produced.  There is also NO2 as well. The CO2 and NO2 still is a '_Warming_' gases. Yet, not as bad as the radicals as CO and NO can be. These gases steal O (Oxygen frmo the Ozone O3 to form CO2 and NO2, so they are much worse. So, yes great strides are being made, yet the CO2 is still an issue.

And until we come up with some form of energy that does not require taking long carbon chains and turning them into short ones, we will continue to get CO2 as a by product. So, even with the advent of the new technology of fues cells, we still need to keep looking, for the enrgy to create or produce the Hydrogen comes from breaking down large carbon chains. Ever little step gets us closer to being better, and having a better understanding.

So, this leads me to two questions.

First Question:
Would you vote to authorize the creation of a nuclear power plant in your state and our your county? This would help reduce global warming gases. Yet there are other by products of Nuclear power. As fas as I know no new Nuclear power plant has gone online in the USA, unless you consider the Navy.

Second question:

Would you vote to authorize an increase in taxes to be used to research into new technologies?

Technolgies such as, yet not limited too, Solar fields, wind mill fields? Solar stations that could transfer the energy to earth, how to transfer the energy to earth, Fusion, tidal energy and anything else we could think of. 

It would be very costly to fund these, yet if we do not do something, the progress most liekly will be at a slower rate.

Thoughts?


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jun 21, 2004)

> First Question:
> Would you vote to authorize the creation of a nuclear power plant in your state and our your county? This would help reduce global warming gases. Yet there are other by products of Nuclear power. As fas as I know no new Nuclear power plant has gone online in the USA, unless you consider the Navy.
> 
> Second question:
> ...



Interesting questions, Rich!

The first one is a toughie.  I would say No, unless we develop actual, secure nuclear waste storage facilities.  And no-one would want to host the plants, or the waste sites.  

I would rather advocate the second (although I know this wasn't an either/or question set) - to pour resources into different kinds of energy research.  I wouldn't raise taxes on the poor or middle class, however - I'd institute that corporations in the USA actually paid taxes and didn't get massive tax breaks when they are netting billions of dollars.  Taxing wealthy multinationals - and ending the "tax shelters" in Bermuda - would fund research, as well as the health care system I would put into place!

(But enough about my plans.)

I'd also like to institute a culture of energy reduction in the USA.  (Here's wishful thinking....)  That *really*, hybrids or low-emission little cars with great mileage should be rewarded financially and socially, that low-energy lightbulbs, appliances at home, should be made even more affordable and rewarded, and so forth.  

(An example...

If you change 4 lightbulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs, you will save 5,000 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions  and over $100.00 on electricity bills over the life of the lightbulbs.)


----------



## Kane (Jun 21, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Really? Where did you find this?


I actually found the info in a book from the library. The book was by Paul H. Jackson and it is entitled "Should We Fear Global Warming?" It points some interesting content about the arguments of scientists for and against global warming.


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 21, 2004)

Kane said:
			
		

> I actually found the info in a book from the library. The book was by Paul H. Jackson and it is entitled "Should We Fear Global Warming?" It points some interesting content about the arguments of scientists for and against global warming.


Kane, you said that more than half the population of scientists do not believe in 'Global Warming' ... but here you are just quoting a single author.

Can you do better, please? I am curious.

Mike


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 21, 2004)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> First Question:
> Would you vote to authorize the creation of a nuclear power plant in your state and our your county? This would help reduce global warming gases. Yet there are other by products of Nuclear power. As fas as I know no new Nuclear power plant has gone online in the USA, unless you consider the Navy.


Yes.

Of course, there are issues with Nuclear Power Plants that need to be addressed. The NIMBY nature of the waste material. The expense of Yucca Mountain. The more we use nuclear fission, the closer we will get to nuclear fusion. And that is the ticket.



			
				Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Second question:
> Would you vote to authorize an increase in taxes to be used to research into new technologies?  Technolgies such as, yet not limited too, Solar fields, wind mill fields? Solar stations that could transfer the energy to earth, how to transfer the energy to earth, Fusion, tidal energy and anything else we could think of. It would be very costly to fund these, yet if we do not do something, the progress most liekly will be at a slower rate.


Rather than use tax policies as an incentive to work on new technologies, I might encourage to use tax policies as a decentive to continue using old technologies. Gasoline should not be cheaper than bottled water. H2 Hummers should not be entitled to $20,000 tax breaks. One report I have seen says that the Oil and Gas industries receive tax subsidies totaling more than 1.3 Billion dollars a year. 

If we stopped these economic give-aways, private industry might be able to pick-up on the alternative energy research on their own.

I do believe there might, at some point, be reason for instituting a tax incentive to develop alternative fuel sources. but *first* we need to eliminate the inertia creating tax policies.

Mike


----------



## jeffbeish (Jun 21, 2004)

I do not engage pseudoscientific drivel about environmental- political nonsense.


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 21, 2004)

jeffbeish said:
			
		

> I do not engage pseudoscientific drivel about environmental- political nonsense.


and yet, ... *You* have.

Hmm, imagine that.


----------



## sokklab (Jun 21, 2004)

Ironically,
 Economic Pressures are likely to be the death knell of Oil. As India and more importantly China, increase not only their production of consumer goods but also their consumption of Oil and other Natural Resources for their own means, the quicker Oil will run out.

 So from an ecological and economic viewpoint, the sooner that we 'Roadtest' practical alternative fuels and alternative ways of consumption, the better it will be for Individual consumer and the Planet.

 Problem is, obviously, Oil Companies don't necessarily want to stop producing and distributing Oil, as incredible profits can be made and old habits die hard. Even more incredible profits can be made by controlling an increasingly diminishing resource and ensuring that 'we' still remain reliant upon said resource to fuel our cars and to create our energy needs.

 Hence vested interests will and do conspire to keep things as they are. But, Oil companies don't have any choice in the matter, they know that Oil is running out and that the quicker China and Indias population come 'Online' and buy cars etc, the quicker that resource will dissappear. 

 The reason why Oil prices have been recently so high and will Probably get much higher in the near future, is, that the Western Nations now find themselves competing for resources with the emerging economies of the world. Ironically, competing for the very resources, that the emerging economies use to manufacture consumer Goods to export to the 'West', in order for consumers to purchase... 

 Regardless of how many people, scientists, individuals talk about Global Warming, it is most likely to be scarcity of the resource that curtails Greenhouse gas production and not the Common-sense argument about Environmental destruction and associated issues.

 Especially if Oil runs out sooner, rather than later. Of course Geo-political pressures revolving around Oil production in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iraq etc, also make it a major Politically sensible move on behalf of nations, to move away from the Combustion Engine and to pursue alternative means of energy production in order to make sure that they are not held to ransom.

 Good Discussion-I've enjoyed reading it. Although, I don't feel that I will enjoy the consequences of our actions too much if the projections about the effects of Global warming are correct....


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 21, 2004)

I'd like to ask the, "pseudo-scientific ecological drivel," folks this: OK, you've got a problem. The mechanisms by which the group of effects called, "global warming," happens are pretty well understood, and pretty straightforward: you dump enough crap (technical term) into the atmosphere, you change the way the planet absorbs/radiates heat, you change the total energy budget, "small," changes happen, they start snowballing, it doesn't take much total change to change global climate quite a bit.

So--you're sure that warming's a phony, cooked up by tree-huggers. Fine. Here's my question: since we know that we are in fact dumping quite a lot of crap (technical term) into the atmosphere, and that, "small," changes like paving everything are also getting to be significant--we can all agree on the chemistry, right?--what mechanisms, exactly, are the ones which lead you to claim that nothing serious is going to happen?

I mean: the warming folks can explain the whys and wherefores, OK. So let's see yours: why's there no problem, exactly? because all I've seen so far is a stamping the foot and saying no, never, uh-uh, nope. 

I'm also curious: why do all the scientissts who claim no seem to work for oil companies?


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jun 21, 2004)

> I'm also curious: why do all the scientissts who claim no seem to work for oil companies?


   Nice point.

This is a website with some different kinds of information - a nonprofit organization dedicated to bringing sound science to bear on policy issues.  

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/page.cfm?pageID=1264

Here's what is on the link, for anyone uninterested in clicking on the link itself...



> [font=Arial, Helvetica]Scientists' Statement on Climate Change[/font] [font=Verdana, Helvetica]
> [/font][font=Verdana, Helvetica]The scientific consensus around climate change is robust. To make this point clear to policy makers in Washington, D.C., more than 1,000 scientists from across the nation have signed the State of Climate Science letter. This letter, from experts in the field, outlines the consensus on the anthropogenic component to climate change. In doing so, the letter reconfirms reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the National Research Council that the consequences of climate change, which is driven in part by emissions of heat-trapping carbon dioxide, will be both disruptive and costly to the United States.
> 
> Read the letter.
> ...


As soon as I can download the list of signers, I will post that too, for anyone interested in the scientific credentials behind it.


----------



## jeffbeish (Jun 21, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> and yet, ... *You* have.
> 
> Hmm, imagine that.



Do a search and then report back kid. Also, keep looking up  the sky is falling.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jun 21, 2004)

You know, Jeff, you still keep snarking and refuse to discuss facts. Your patronizing tone, with nothing substantial to back it up, is becoming annoying. Please discuss facts or refrain from snarking. Thank you.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 21, 2004)

Hey, Jeff:

To repeat a question I already asked, what exactly  is it that makes you so convinced this is just some sort of tree-hugging hoax? What facts do you have? Could  you please explain the mechanisms at work, since--as I mentioned above--we know that we are dumping a lot of this and that into the atmposphere as well as making other changes in the ecology, and there seem to be some pretty clear consequences?

Otherwise, it's pretty much going to keep looking as though you don't have any facts or coherent explanations, you're just saying, "Nope, nope, wrong, don't want to believe it."

It looks to me like wishful, and--sorry, but that's how it  looks--selfish thinking: "I don't want to change anything I'm doing, so I refuse to believe that there are consequences to what I'm doing."

I doubt that's true, so please: could you just give your facts, and explanations?

Thanks.


----------



## Cruentus (Jun 21, 2004)

Hey...don't you know!? The earth really isn't in any danger, despite what those gordamned treehuggers say.

And...if you believe that, let me come over an piss and s**t in your iced tea daily, you drink it, and let me know if that has any adverse effects.

Your Friend,

Spencer Abraham


----------



## Cruentus (Jun 21, 2004)

For fun, we can also read our administrations site on global warming:

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/index.html

Hell, even they'll admit that there is a man-made problem, even if they won't recognize the extent, and aren't willing to do anything about it.

Sincerely,

Mike Leavitt


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 21, 2004)

jeffbeish said:
			
		

> Do a search and then report back kid. Also, keep looking up the sky is falling.


Upon further research. I can quite convincingly report that the user known as 'jeffbeish' does engage (or at least has engaged on two seperate, provable instances), in "pseudoscientific drivel about environmental- political nonsense."

What's more, by his continued denials, proves his hypocrosy.

Signed:

"The kid"


----------



## JPR (Jun 22, 2004)

jeffbeish said:
			
		

> Well, as expected you expose yourself the phony in both Martial Arts and in the professional community. When you mature come back.


I thought I might help you with a couple of facts so that you could avoid embarrassing yourself by accident again. If you are purposefully trying to make yourself look foolish then you can ignore what follows and have at it.



First, Feisty Mouse is indeed a scientist. Fiesty works in a university lab.



Second, Fiesty is also a Martial Artist. I have trained Kali and Jun Fan with Fiesty.



Third, you may not agree with a person's position or opinions, but that really isn't license to assault their character. Character assaults often come from people that have logically weak arguments.



Fourth, and final, one evidence of maturity is the ability to balance courage and consideration. Courage to express your own opinions, and consideration to listen and understand someone elses point of view. 



JPR


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jun 22, 2004)

Thanks for the "street cred", JPR.  It's nice to see you here, too!


----------



## jeffbeish (Jun 22, 2004)

When you finish venting your immature vile do you two fondle only yourselves?  Wow, working in a lab.  Whee.  A real live bad guy too.  Well, I suspect that both of your training was canceled due to lack of interest. As we used to say to young recruits in the military -- I have more time in the chow line than either of you have at the dojo.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jun 22, 2004)

Jeff, you have shown nothing but disrespect to amazing arrogance and prepubescent "tough guy" language.  I am surprised to learn that you have extensive training in the military, or MA - the folks I have met with either or both kinds of training tend to be a lot more circumspect in their language, and respectful of others, whether they agree or disagree. 

I take your childish comments and personal slurs as an open admission that you cannot and will not argue facts on global warming.  

And it's "bad GIRL" to you, punk.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 22, 2004)

Dear Jeff:

Thanks for reinforcing my prejudice that the true badasses are always courteous, polite and soft-spoken. 

And oh yes--they also tend to take the simplest way, which in this case would be to cite evidence and offer better arguments.

Of course, one of the nice things about the Internet IS that one can pretend to be whoever one wants, right?


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 22, 2004)

jeffbeish said:
			
		

> When you finish venting your immature vile do you two fondle only yourselves?


Ahh ... gee ... I really hate to do this, but not so much that I won't.

Jeff the word 'vile' is an adjective. Adjectives are words used to describe nouns. But you actually used the word as a noun. Shame on you. 

What you probably meant was the word 'bile', which is a noun. Although, I am not sure that 'immature' would be an appropriate adjective to describe liver secretions. 

Anyhow, after the word 'vile' (or 'bile'), there really should have been a comma, to separate the two clauses of your sentence. Might I suggest the book 'Eats Shoots & Leaves' by Lynne Truss. This book explains the importance of punctuation when arguing a point.

I really hate to pick nits, so I will forgive any other spelling mistakes in your posts. After all, I can read typo as good as the best of them. And I have been known to mis a word or two myself.

Cheers.

Mike


----------



## JPR (Jun 22, 2004)

I would like to try to refocus the thread, so here it goes.

I think the debate shouldnt really be are we affecting the environment, because I dont think that is a debatable point.  Humans (as well as all other living things) affect the environment by simply living.  


For example, when you enter a room you affect the environment of that room in a measurable way.  The temperature in the room will begin to rise.  The humidity in the room will increase.  The oxygen in the room will decrease while the CO2 levels will rise.  This is your direct affect upon the limited environment of a room.  We normally do not notice this effect because we have developed systems that stabilize the rooms environment (air conditioning) and a room isnt really a closed loop system (you can leave it, or open it up, it exchanges air with external environments, etc.).  When we do notice the change is when the stabilization system fails, or we overload the systems capacity.  It is sort of like being in a crowded elevator.  The temperature rises, the air becomes stuffy and generally people are uncomfortable.



This relates to the issue of global warming.  Everything that lives upon this planet is affecting the environment.  However, the world was created as filtration system to provide a somewhat stable set of conditions so that life could exist.  The debate, IMHO, should center on the question of are we outpacing the capacity of the earth to filter what we produce.  This would be the science issue.  Even the evidence that is being used (rising CO2 levels, warmer temperatures, or colder temperatures) isnt alone compelling.  There is a cyclical nature to the ecosystem that we dont understand because we have a very limited view as to its history and the cycle could be very long.  What is happening to the current climate could be totally natural and we could be well within the systems capacity.



Interwoven with the science issue is also an issue of economics.  Nothing comes free, corporations are profit driven, and corporations develop products to meet peoples demands (ie. stuff that sells).    Look at the 70s oil crisis.  When the supply of oil was restricted (and prices rose) the consumers called for changes.  Cars became smaller and more fuel efficient, research into alternative fuels (ethanol and others) was increased, people drove less, people chose to reduce expenditures to heat and cool their homes and work places.  All of this happened in response to the supply limitations and the rising prices.  We are far from that same mindset today because of the abundance we enjoy.



One of the issues of the economic side is that we have difficulty truly measuring the cost of any set of actions.  We dont know fully what the opportunity cost is of developing say, hydrogen fuel cell technology.  And right now there isnt a huge demand for it.  So if it were developed, there would be little way to make a product that a consumer would buy to recoup the research and development cost.  If we dont develop it, and the temperature rises (or falls) 10 degrees F what will be the cost then?  



Finally, the political perspective also impacts the issue.  We seem to have a very difficult time civilly discussing issues (as can be witnessed to by the posting on this board) and handling complex issues.  So we become Balkanized and gravitate toward extremes.  Some liberal thinking is that it is a vast conspiracy of the oil companys to make obscene profits at the cost of the planet while conservative thinking is that it is a vast conspiracy of the environmental movement to foist some sort of global communism upon us, restrict our choices and destroy our way of life.  I wish the issue were really that easy.  The truth lies somewhere between.  We are somewhat a victim of our own success and an addict to our own desires.  We want more, always for less and usually right now.  These motives drive our choices.  Our choices drive the corporations and the politicians.  



Our challenge is to be able to advance as a civilization while maintaining the viability of the environment we live in.  It is to allow for individual freedom of choice but temper it with responsibility for the affects it has upon my neighbor and upon future generations.  Look in the mirror, there you find the heart of the issue and the main solution to the problem.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jun 22, 2004)

That was a lovely post, JPR.

I would argue that evidence suggests that global climate change is being accelerated or adversely influenced in disturbing ways due to human activity - namely, the burning of fossil fuels on a very large scale, and the resultant CO2 dump.  But I am certainly willing to discuss the different kinds of data and sources the data come from. 

And it is very much a complicated issue, in part how to implement change when we may not, today, this second, "hafta" change.  I would suggest that the financial benefits of low-energy alternatives, along with the political and environmental (on another level - such as reducing ozone levels and smog in cities, or reducing the risk of oil spills) benefits of energy use reduction and alternative energy sources, would be the best motivators for people. 

Snaps to you.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 22, 2004)

While I too appreciate the politeness and reason, I'm afraid I don't agree with several of your basic premises. And, because I think they show what part of the problem is, I'd like to explain what I mean.

I don't buy the notion--the belief, actually--that, "the world was created as filtration system to provide a somewhat stable set of conditions so that life could exist." That's religion, not science--and while it's a pleasant far distance from the sort of weird millenarialist thinking that has led some Christians to say that we SHOULD tear up the planet, because a) the End Times are near anyway, and b) Jesus wants to see that we've been busy, it leads to conclusions that aren't warranted. 

When we strip mine a ridge in West Virginia, that is not Nature, not if the word, "nature," means anything at all. It's human action, human design that's at work--and this is very far from simply walking around and exhaling. Moreover, we've jacked around with the environment so that we can procreate in seemingly-endless profusion: that's  not, "Nature," either. It's irresponsible human action.

Moreover, there's a false premise about this, "filtration system," business--actually, there are three. The damage--or if you prefer, the effect--isn't simply a matter of producing chemicals that the planet might or might not filter. It's also a matter of literally changing the atmosphere, changing the way the planet absorbs/reflects light, and the wavelengths at which these phenomena occur. Then, there's the fact that we've already torn out or destroyed a great deal of that filtration system--check out stupid destruction of rain forest, check out the proliferation of, "dead zones," in the ocean, check out the erasure of fish species. And last, there are already very good indicators that we have ALREADY grossly overloaded any, "filtering," mechanisms you want to name, the most famous of which are the worldwide changes to coral reef habitats. 

Last, this stuff about, "free choice," and "consumer demand." Sure, we should learn to make better choices. Unfortunately, our whole idea of, "choice," and of, "freedom," is now tied up tight with consumerism, waste, and the "right," to use more and more children's toys like Ski-Doos and motorbikes. It's tied up with eating all we want, driving wherever we want, and immediate comfort. So, since our whole idea of "choice," operates within the parameters of consumerism....our "choices," aren't likely to be responsible.

Thanks for the courtesy, and the reason. I don't agree at all.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jun 22, 2004)

JPR said:
			
		

> I thought I might help you with a couple of facts so that you could avoid embarrassing yourself by accident again. If you are purposefully trying to make yourself look foolish then you can ignore what follows and have at it.




Good man, JPR.  

She deserves the back up.

We note you are much calmer in personality than me.



SCS


----------



## KenpoTess (Jun 22, 2004)

*Keep it on Topic People.. Personal Attacks Will NOT Be Tolerated.  

If you have issues with Someone, Please either Take it Off  the boards or use the Ignore Feature.*

~Tess
-MT S. Mod-


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 22, 2004)

I think I have to align myself with Robert on these last few posts. JPR, your comments seem to be very 'Homo Sapien Centric', as if the whole world were designed as a platform for our existance. 

But man plays such an incredibly small role in the history of the planet, it is arrogant in the extreme to think that everything here is for our purpose.

I believe it is possible to 'kill' the planet, although extremely difficult. We could put enough toxins into the environment that somewhere a single link in the web of life gets broken, and everything starts to collapse in on itself. This could be greenhouse gases, or it could be genetically modified crops introducing changes in the environment.

I do think, however, that it is far more likely that human beings will manage to kill themselves off, and the insects will take over the planet. The planet, and life on the planet will go on, long after we have managed to erase our existance from time.

I do hope we are not just a flash in the pan of Earth's history. But, if we are not, it will be our own arrogance that causes it to be so. We so little understand the impact of what we are doing with science. It's a shame.

Mike

PS - I hope I'm wrong.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jun 22, 2004)

jeffbeish said:
			
		

> When you finish venting your immature vile do you two fondle only yourselves?  Wow, working in a lab.  Whee.  A real live bad guy too.  Well, I suspect that both of your training was canceled due to lack of interest. As we used to say to young recruits in the military -- I have more time in the chow line than either of you have at the dojo.




You DO indeed have more time in the chowline than either of them do in the dojo.  JPR and Feisty are fairly new to the martial arts.

64 pounds lost on the Atkins diet, you say?  You have more time in the chowline than any of us together.

JPR is an engineer that works for the Navy.  Feisty we know about.   FEEL FREE to take them on and post some arguments to counter theirs...or go back to the chow line.

You really have a problem with Kali, I note.  Looks like you've borrowed someone else's internet sniper tactics with your posts.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Nightingale (Jun 22, 2004)

MOD NOTE:

Thread locked pending admin review

-Nightingale-
MT MODERATOR


----------

