25 replies to this topic

[Charlie Prime]

Karlis, on 04 April 2012 - 08:55 PM, said:

"New York Times environmental reporter Justin Gillis confessed his series on climate "was more or less a direct response to Climategate, which led to a lot of questions about the science."

The sad thing is that Gillis was actually proud of his deceptions.

This is how ideology destroys basic morality.   All manner of evil is excusable as long as the long-term goal of global communism is served.

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

So people lets ask ourselves this question. What happens when the earth comes out of an ice age?

Also if earth goes through a warming phase we would experience once again a global cooling. Two seperate meteorologist feild friends of mine discussed this with me on two seperate occasions. I'm not going to say either was speaking absolute fact but I will say I did not lead into these conversations with any assumption posed and was offered this insightby both immediately in asking what they thought of the global warming issue.

Now I'm not saying things haven't warmed. In fact in Minnesota/Wisconsin since the storm of 92 or so the winters have progressively gotten a bit warmer and have stabilized a bit the last few years with shorter "winters". I think its more a natural cycle than anything else.
The cynic in me sees an enormous amount of personal monetary gain from this subject.
I think we SHOULD live greener lives without all the toxins and unnecessary chemicals. I think we should be interested in a small carbon foot print. I think we should reduce our dependence on "fossil" fuels. If we can use more solar or hydrogen great! Wind I'm not to fond of in its current state of Desertification directly behind the turbines. But non of this is because I believe that we must act because of global warming but because its simply a better way to live.
Those are my thoughts anyways for what they're worth.

[Doug1o29]

Aus Der Box Skeptisch, on 20 June 2012 - 06:14 AM, said:

So people lets ask ourselves this question. What happens when the earth comes out of an ice age?

Sea levels stabilized about 7000 years ago, indicating that for the most-part, ice had quit melting and the Great Ice Age was over.  Ice and sea have fluctuated slightly since then in 1500-year cycles.  The last such peak was from about 250 to 800 AD when sea levels were 5.6 feet above modern.  Check out the paleo sea levels of the Heroopolitic Red Sea, an ephemeral body of water twenty miles wide and 60 miles long that strecthed from Ismailia, Egypt (just east of the biblical Shur) to 12 miles north of Suez.  Hint:  it was dry when "Moses" passed that way.

Quote

Also if earth goes through a warming phase we would experience once again a global cooling.

If that warming were natural, that would be true.  But man-caused warming is not natural.  As long as humans are in charge of the climate, there will never again be an ice age.  We know how to warm the planet:  the output of one CFC plant would be enough to head off any ice age.  It's cooling it that we don't know how to do.

Quote

Now I'm not saying things haven't warmed. In fact in Minnesota/Wisconsin since the storm of 92 or so the winters have progressively gotten a bit warmer and have stabilized a bit the last few years with shorter "winters". I think its more a natural cycle than anything else.

Funny you should mention 1992.  I have been studying winter storms on the Ouachita National Forest using tree rings.  That was a bad winter on the Ouachita.  It was also anomalous:  it was not part of the normal 40-year hot-cold cycle.  What caused it?  I don't know.  Perhaps in a later study...

Quote

The cynic in me sees an enormous amount of personal monetary gain from this subject.

If you think the amount to be made from global warming is substantial, check out the amount to be made by polluters as a result of heading off regulation.

Quote

I think we SHOULD live greener lives without all the toxins and unnecessary chemicals. I think we should be interested in a small carbon foot print. I think we should reduce our dependence on "fossil" fuels. If we can use more solar or hydrogen great! Wind I'm not to fond of in its current state of Desertification directly behind the turbines. But non of this is because I believe that we must act because of global warming but because its simply a better way to live.
Those are my thoughts anyways for what they're worth.

And that is what the global warming issue is:  how to feed, clothe and house the world's people without destroying the ecosystems that make it all possible.
Doug

[karmakazi]

I think that regardless of whether climate change is real or not... or the cause, the solutions that are pushed are money making solutions for those that push them, and they aren't solutions; they are band-aids.

There is money to be had by corporations and the government if someone buys a reusable grocery bag, a car that uses less or no gas, switches to energy star appliances, shoes made from vegan leather, or uses only recycled paper.

There is no money or a loss of money in telling people to use no grocery bag at all, grow their own food, stop driving, stop using appliances except when necessary, wear out the shoes they already have even if they are made of man-made materials or from leather that isn't cruelty free, to have one or two days a week where they turn off all non-essential power in their home and skip using computers, cell phones, lights, televisions, gaming systems, stereos, etc, to consume less food and less products to reduce the strain on our own wallets and on the natural resources, and boycott every single food that comes with more than 1/5 oz of packaging.  That includes fast food and a lot of restaurant food - particularly chains... as the entire restaurant is the packaging in those cases.

Ironically, one set of answers costs the general public more money, the other costs us less.  Potentially a lot less!

I'm tired of the idea that "caring about the environment" means "buying things you didn't really need in the first place just because they're called eco friendly".

[Doug1o29]

karmakazi, on 21 June 2012 - 04:18 PM, said:

I think that regardless of whether climate change is real or not... or the cause, the solutions that are pushed are money making solutions for those that push them, and they aren't solutions; they are band-aids.

The only real solution is to go renewable:  solar and/or wind.  Until then, fast-breeder nuclear will buy us a lot of time.  Natural gas is less-polluting than other sources of energy, but still polluting.  We can use it to cover the gap while we bring other methods on line.

Quote

There is money to be had by corporations and the government if someone buys a reusable grocery bag, a car that uses less or no gas, switches to energy star appliances, shoes made from vegan leather, or uses only recycled paper.

An electric car with a range of 300-to-500 miles at a price comparable to other cars would save me a bundle.  I don't mind paying for a new car if it saves me money.

That's the key:  look at the product over the long haul, then go with the one that saves you the most.

Quote

There is no money or a loss of money in telling people to use no grocery bag at all, grow their own food, stop driving, stop using appliances except when necessary, wear out the shoes they already have even if they are made of man-made materials or from leather that isn't cruelty free, to have one or two days a week where they turn off all non-essential power in their home and skip using computers, cell phones, lights, televisions, gaming systems, stereos, etc, to consume less food and less products to reduce the strain on our own wallets and on the natural resources, and boycott every single food that comes with more than 1/5 oz of packaging.  That includes fast food and a lot of restaurant food - particularly chains... as the entire restaurant is the packaging in those cases.

Nobody is saying you need to go right out and buy something.  But next time you need to replace something, go green.  It is too late to do anything about the things you have now - the most evironmentally friendly approach is usually to use them up or wear them out before you replace them.

Much of what is being touted is just a greenwash - things advertizers with no knowledge of ecology think they can sell, hoping that the consumer's lack of knowledge will let them get away with it.  "Let the buyer beware."
Doug

[karmakazi]

Doug1o29, on 21 June 2012 - 06:15 PM, said:

The only real solution is to go renewable:  solar and/or wind.  Until then, fast-breeder nuclear will buy us a lot of time.  Natural gas is less-polluting than other sources of energy, but still polluting.  We can use it to cover the gap while we bring other methods on line.

Yup and in the interim, before someone can actually get the solar or alternative energy going, having mini "blackout days" would help.

Quote

An electric car with a range of 300-to-500 miles at a price comparable to other cars would save me a bundle.  I don't mind paying for a new car if it saves me money.

I'm saying that if someone has a car that's only a few years old, buying a new car because it's green still has a negative carbon impact.  When possible, driving less and grouping errands on a single day can save about the same, especially if you consider that electric cars still use fuel, it's just converted to electricity before it's in the car.

Now I'd love to see a solar powered electric car... hopefully in ten years or so when I may be in need of a car one will exist

Then again, I don't worry about too much now because all the cars I've ever owned have gotten very good gas mileage.... except for the 2nd Chevy Cavalier, it was kind of a guzzler for a 4C.

Quote

Nobody is saying you need to go right out and buy something.  

I have to disagree, most commercials and some societal standards at least imply such

Quote

But next time you need to replace something, go green.  It is too late to do anything about the things you have now - the most evironmentally friendly approach is usually to use them up or wear them out before you replace them.

Much of what is being touted is just a greenwash - things advertizers with no knowledge of ecology think they can sell, hoping that the consumer's lack of knowledge will let them get away with it.  "Let the buyer beware."
Doug

Agreed!

[Doug1o29]

karmakazi, on 21 June 2012 - 07:16 PM, said:

I have to disagree, most commercials and some societal standards at least imply such

Commercials are always after you to buy something.  That's what commercials do.  There's a lot of "greenwash" in advertising - telling customers that something is environmentally friendly when it's not.  Let the buyer beware.
Doug

[docyabut2]

Maybe global warming is not a bad thing ,a little flooding here and there, but if the Antarctica is melting slowly which it is, there would be a whole new continent for humans to live on.



HowStuffWorks "If the polar ice caps melted, how much would the oceans rise?"

[Doug1o29]

docyabut2, on 23 June 2012 - 03:39 AM, said:

Maybe global warming is not a bad thing ,a little flooding here and there, but if the Antarctica is melting slowly which it is, there would be a whole new continent for humans to live on.

You might want to check out the possibility of environmental collapse should climates continue to shift toward warmth.  The forests of the American southwest are already in decline and this is only expected to get worse.

Also check out the "methane gun."  If we exterminate ourselves, this seems like the most-likely mechanism.  There isn't enough CO2 in the air to do it just now, but in a few more decades of business-as-usual and there will be.
Doug

P.S.:  the height of land between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea is only 62 feet.  A current already flows northward through the Suez Canal.  If rising sea level allows a greater flow, we will see a warm current flowing out of the Med into the North Atlantic - with potentially serious weather and climate consequences.  And we're not even talking about that one, yet.
Doug

[Coffey]

I never know what to think of global warming, we hear different reports all the time. One set of people saying it's caused by polution etc and we are destroying the planet, another set syaing it's the Earths natural cycle and it's done it before.

docyabut2, on 23 June 2012 - 03:39 AM, said:

Maybe global warming is not a bad thing ,a little flooding here and there, but if the Antarctica is melting slowly which it is, there would be a whole new continent for humans to live on.



HowStuffWorks "If the polar ice caps melted, how much would the oceans rise?"

There was a report posted on here before that said one side was melting, but it was buidling up on the other side. Which is just a natural course caused by the Earths tilt.

[Doug1o29]

Coffey, on 30 June 2012 - 06:02 PM, said:

I never know what to think of global warming, we hear different reports all the time. One set of people saying it's caused by polution etc and we are destroying the planet, another set syaing it's the Earths natural cycle and it's done it before.

There are natural cycles.  I deal with them all the time.  My shortleaf pine dataset shows nine drought cycles in the central US since 1650.  And we're just wrapping up the latest "cycle".  If things repeat again, 2013 will see another bad drought and 2015 may be even worse.  2012 and 2014 shouldn't be so bad.  BUT:  2008, 2009 and 2010 were very wet years, at a time when we should have been starting into a drought; this has never happened before.  Something has changed.

So what's different?  Weather changes due to human-caused warming are superimposed on natural cycles.  So what you're seeing is a natural cycle that is just a little different from any that have gone before.  Tornadoes move a little farher north and happen earlier in the year; rain is a little heavier than we've ever seen it in this part of the plains.  Snow cover doesn't last as long.  2012 has a larger heat dome over Oklahoma and Kansas than it should have.  Large ice storms occur a little less frequently than 40 years ago and small ones are becoming more common.  Subtle changes to a person, yet rapid to ecosystems that have depended on the status quo for 11,600 years.

What it's caused by is carbon in the atmosphere absorbing energy that would otherwise radiate into space.  In the air, carbon is carbon; it doesn't wear a nametag saying "Made in China."  It's the total amount that counts, regardless of where it came from.  Some is natural and some is there because people have released it from natural sinks, like the soil and like coal, gas and oil.  Most is natural; it's that little bit that isn't natural that is causing the havoc.

Quote

There was a report posted on here before that said one side was melting, but it was buidling up on the other side. Which is just a natural course caused by the Earths tilt.

A couple years ago we had a Congressman expressing concern about putting too many military personnel on Guam for fear it would tip over.  That's similar to the melting-on-one-side idea.
Doug