climatic changes, what do you think about that?

[Sc@tterbrain 0]

Well "environmentalism" has hit close to home for me. A large forest fire now threatens our cabin built by the hands of a father and grandfather.

The news so far is hopeful. While the area is decemated, our street looks to be in good shape. The reason is most likely the recent "thinning" of trees in the area. This process usually involves removing brush that seasonally becomes dry and taking out dead and smaller trees that crowd the old growth.

Unfortunately many in the area have not been so lucky. Some are quite pissed that they were barred by environmentalist organizations from removing dead and infected (bark-beatle) trees. Now they can only wonder if had they been alowed, their homes and hundreds of acres of forrest might have been saved.

Read article here

Tree-hugger types that have lived in Tahoe for years know full well what is required to limit these fires and preserve the old growth forests. Unfortunately they are not listened to by band-wagon environmentalists who jump on the political adgenda with NO clue about what it means in pratice. Things will very likely change here as San Francisco environmentalists with summer homes who forced bad decisions, will find that their undeserved infuence has gone up in smoke.

[Necromancer- 0]

In my opinion.. if we wish to effectively save moderately our way of living on our planet.. every country should turn their countries into "energy police" states by enforcing a marshall law for a period of 40 years containing the next constitutional laws:

-Ration the use of all forms of CO2-producing energy.

-Decrease the world population by enforcing a one-child policy. People giving birth to twins or more are excepted from this rule. All others will be forced to commit abortion.

After 40 years the one-child policy will be raised to a two-child policy (3rd child is allowed, but will be heavily taxed) untill we find a law-system to level our population to less than 1 billion.

Untill we find a "magical" source of infinite non/extremely low CO2-producing energy the marshall law will be lifted and we all can happily live ever after.

[AgentJonathan 0]

It's all gone down the crap-hole! The corrupt government is shovin' this crap up your arse! The government thrives on making up lies.

I'm just sayin... I saw a guy, whose sig bashed the unsupportive government, and yet he believes all of this bull-dropping.

[Journeyman 0]

2) Your employment of a pop science documentary to argue your case rather than using science.

3) Your quote out of context of a scientific paper (probably Google hunting a small bit of text to support your view IMHO) and that you then proceed to refuse the papers findings because they don't suit your view.

Then I expect you will be doing the same with THIS  scientific paper? … Make a cup of tea it is quite long!

… Oh wait! What will you be calling it … let me think urm ..more pop science? … or  wait maybe ‘just another nut job’ report?  Please ridicule it with a name as this has been your fame to date! Or maybe you know the therapist of the author of this paper!

You see everything so far that you have presented to me has also come from the Internet so you are shooting yourself in the foot with that one!

As for the graph that you still keep parading, I would like you to clarify to us all what happened…

… and please tell us why the co2 graph does NOT fit these temperature decline periods? Why would temperatures fall if co2 is on the rise and this (according to you) is the predominant temperature driver? The eruption of Krakatoa in 1883 might explain the first fall in ~1883 but then it drops again in 1900. Could the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius explain 1940?

But what about the eruptions of Mt St.Helens in 1980 and Mt. Pinatubo in 1991? These were massive too but I don’t see any significant impact on the temperature for that period? I am searching for the cause but I can’t find it. It certainly doesn’t reflect the co2 graph! You see so many things are inconclusive!

We can certainly assume that co2 is driving the current climate. BUT we can ONLY assume!

And now with this in mind you still haven’t said how we should be ‘realistically’ rectifying the ‘problem’!

The last post by Necromancer- was about the scale of it!  

EDIT: Incidentally when I read a graph I don’t just look at the squiggly line than has been drawn over the readings, instead I refer to the ‘peaks’ and ‘troughs’. The ‘peaks’ and ‘troughs’ are the ‘real data’ that was recorded and not just someone’s estimation of averages added later! But I assume you already know that!  

[whisper 0]

can't it be that all this sudden worries about the atmosphere is nothing but a excuse to prepare and to make people aware of the next shortage of petroleum ? the goverments just want to reduce the energetic waste while they search for an alternative energy supply . there is nothing more than 30 years of petroleum left

William, great thought.

I don't know the answer to that, but good question. It may border on "conspiracy theory," but it's far from a crazy scenario. (no more far fetched than many of the explanations thus far...)

I know its a topic for a separate thread, but how much in debate is the ammount of oil left?

Anyway, I applaud you for thinking beyond sunspots and "greenhouse" gasses. Looking at an issue with a broad view, and asking such questions is a rational approach.

Good post

In which case, wouldn't these bad governments * bah, baaad, /spit * be .... extremely right into thinking : "we don't have much petrol left, let's reduce our waste of it"?

That seems quite sensible to me.

As for Baff1, don't know how nice is your land, but in mine, in my (sorry) extremely short 32 years of living, I cannot now drink the water of the local river because of the pollution in it, like I used to when I was young. Things have changed, and it's not for the better.

[Necromancer- 0]

The last post by Necromancer- was about the scale of it!  

My last post with idea's wasn't just for the CO2 problem.

We are with far too many people using up the Earth's resources untill we can find a way to harvest such resources extra-terrestrially at the needed scale.

The #1 resource (apart from food) is oil. Even if we don't need oil to use as an energy source, we still need it to manufacture modern high-tech products at such scale.

Almost everyone agrees that the solution against poverty is that poor countries should become fast growing economical tigers such as China. I completely disagree.

I have no way of scientific proof or research to support this argument, but given the course of history to me this argument is quite plausible.

[Gisen 0]

VOLCANOES!!!!!

You are speaking nonsense

This is how volcano output gas levels are measured

Please look to real, peer reviewed, respected scientific information instead of some geocities -spawn website run by a nut in his basement for your information.

The claim that volcanoes emit more CO2 and other greenhouse gases* than humans is just fantasy nonsense.

*Several people have already told you that CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas nor factor affecting the temperature of the earth, so why do you persist in your strawman claim that the CO2 graph should fit the temperature graph exactly??

Could it be because you're not using science but rather faith?

[Journeyman 0]

VOLCANOES!!!!!

You are speaking nonsense

This is how volcano output gas levels are measured

Please look to real, peer reviewed, respected scientific information instead of some geocities -spawn website run by a nut in his basement for your information.  

The claim that volcanoes emit more CO2 and other greenhouse gases* than humans is just fantasy nonsense.  

*Several people have already told you that CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas nor factor affecting the temperature of the earth, so why do you persist in your strawman claim that the CO2 graph should fit the temperature graph exactly??

Could it be because you're not using science but rather faith?

Please read my posts properly instead of jumping out of your skin in anger over something that was not stated and then proceeding to misquote me over it!

If you had taken the time to read what I said instead of assuming that I was somehow linking volcanic eruptions with co2 you would have ‘understood’ (possibly! ) that I was referring to the known impact that major volcanic eruptions have on world temperatures due to the ash clouds that cover the earth and cause a cooling effect!

This has been recorded in the past and I was attempting to explain why it was that the temperature had dropped during the period from ~1880 to ~1910 and then again from ~1940 to ~1955 and was in no way implying that this was the cause either. In fact quite the opposite I was showing how this temperature drop could NOT be explained easily and definitely has NO bearing whatsoever on the co2 graph.

It makes me laugh whenever someone sees something that ‘threatens’ their views that ‘man made co2 is the single force governing our present day climate’ they simply cannot take it so much so that they don’t even bother to read it properly! And yes I was right yet another name has emerged in an attempt to disrepute the latest threat!

You didn’t even read my post properly so you can’t possibly have read anything else properly either before deciding that it didn’t suit your views! Consequently your last post (just like the two before it) have added about as much to this debate as farting in a methane factory!

You tell me to get some ‘real evidence’ I tell you to ‘open your eyes’!

[Gisen 0]

It makes me laugh whenever someone sees something that ‘threatens’ their views that ‘man made co2 is the single force governing our present day climate’ they simply cannot take it so much so that they don’t even bother to read it properly! And yes I was right yet another name has emerged in an attempt to disrepute the latest threat!

Several people have already told you that CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas nor factor affecting the temperature of the earth, so why do you persist in your strawman claim that the CO2 graph should fit the temperature graph exactly??

Could it be because you're not using science but rather faith?

Yes, I must be the one that isn't reading things properly.

I was indeed preempting you with the volcanoes information, but if you have realised that that particular part of the anti-warming mythos is bunk then good for you. Only a few more steps to go.

[Journeyman 0]

I was indeed preempting you with the volcanoes information,

 Nice one!

... Is it beyond you to admit that you just didn’t read my post properly? (I seem to remember someone saying something about ‘pride’ earlier! )

Quote[/b] ]Several people have already told you that CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas nor factor affecting the temperature of the earth, so why do you persist in your strawman claim that the CO2 graph should fit the temperature graph exactly??

Could it be because you're not using science but rather faith?

So is this an admittance that man made co2 cannot be solely blamed for the current change in climate?

And please tell me what are the other gasses so that we can discuss these too! Otherwise you are just speculating again and speculating is not science!

The ‘other factors’ interests me most though! What might these be?  

[Gisen 0]

I was preempting what I assumed you or another anti-warming faithhead would go onto, another popular lie amongst the antis- the claim about volcanoes producing more CO2 than humans. Why don't you go along with that, along with the rest of the anti-warming crowd?

So we've finally got you to notice that you've been attacking a strawman the entire time. Maybe if YOU go back and read the many previous posts by the various contributors to the debate you'll see what the other factors are. Maybe if you actually read some of the scientific articles already linked to in the thread you'd have slightly more of an idea of what science is, because you don't seem to have the faintest idea at present.

I'm not going to list all of the other factors because if you actually read some of the science on the topic yourself it might sink in.

[Journeyman 0]

I was preempting what I assumed you or another anti-warming faithhead would go onto, another popular lie amongst the antis- the claim about volcanoes producing more CO2 than humans.  Why don't you go along with that, along with the rest of the anti-warming crowd?  

And so we’re back to 'name calling and 'assuming' without anything to back up anything! This is what I’m up against not ‘science’!

My wife is right I waste too much time here!  

[Gisen 0]

What name calling? Your entire 'argument' is based on your faith that global warming is not happening, not science. The sources have already been provided to you, that's why I'm not doing YOUR research for you.

You actually have the temerity to claim that you know anything at all about the science behind global warming in order to attack it, but you weren't even aware that CO2 is not the only driver of change!

[Major Fubar 0]

Let's all try to keep thing civil please.

[shinRaiden 0]

Here is yet another near-disaster that lays squarely at the feet of the environmentalists.

Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia, is home to Port Waratah, one of the largest coal ports in Australia, and the main export port for the greater Hunter region coal mines. For several years now, the coal mines have been able to supply the port in excess of what the port has space to load ships with. Presently the port operates on a first-come first-served basis with the coal shipping companies, and as a result there's always a mad dash by the bulk cargo carriers to race their ships down from East Asia to stack them up off the coast.

Port Waratah has repeated requested that the government oversight commissions develop a negotiable quota system to throttle back the ship circus, while allowing that cap to be expanded upwards based on possible future capacity expansion (under separate negotiation). The environmentalist lobby is agreeable to a quota, but a quota mandating that the end customer only use the coal in facilities that meet certain environmental standards, or in absence of the practicality of such wishful thinking, impose an export cap of 0 tons of coal since the customers can't be 'trusted'. The net effect of that is not only would all the exports be lost, but it would then back up the rail lines forcing a shutdown of the coal mines. Incidentally, the East Australian coal is significantly 'cleaner' to begin with than the high-sulfur unrefined Chinese coal.

The result of this stalemate (the environmentalists won't negotiate, and the industry can't negotiate, and the government has been unwilling to force a mutually beneficial resolution) is that there is often 40~70 bulk carriers stacked up off the coast of Newcastle at any given time. With numbers that high, and with the high electrical demands in the northern hemisphere corresponding with increased severe weather in the southern hemisphere, accidents are less a matter of if, but rather become a question of when.

A month ago, one of the fleet of the impatient, a bulk carrier named the Pasha Bulker, lost control during a storm and grounded on Newcastle's prime surf beach at Nobby's Point. It was empty of cargo, but carried over a quarter million gallons (800k+ liters) of fuel and oil. Fortunately, it was just recently successfully extracted with only slight leakage, but threatened serious environmental hazard until it was salvaged.

Had the environmentalists been willing to negotiate a suitable and sensible quota controlling coal exports, the Pasha Bulker might not have been in that location at that time. Instead of sitting idling off the coast increasing risk of an accident with duration and density, it would have been securely in port or safely out to sea.

It makes you wonder if the environmentalists wouldn't mind a truely horrific catastrophe so that they would then be able to exploit innocent human suffering for their own political, and more correctly, economic personal gain.

-edit-

[baddo 0]

I voted 'this is a real problem for the future'

But it's not that clear.

Some facts:

- There has been ice age when my current place of living has been under kilometers of ice, now I can't see ice anywhere except in my freezer and outside during Winters in relatively small amounts.

- Ice age ended, so climate became warmer obviously. So it is true what the scientists say: climate has warmed, and as they say, it is still warming.

- But even though climate has in general warmed, every year during the Winter we get very cold weather, snow and ice. It has happened this far in every Winter that I remember during the almost 29 years that I have lived.

Now, to my personal views on the subject.

- 29 years or so is very short time to look at how the temperature in the Earth changes. This is, I think, a mistake that is done by many many people, also scientists. The problem is with us human beings, we tend to know what we have lived through, what we have read, what we have seen on TV etc. All that learning happens on a relatively very small time frame and from limited amount of material which was made on short time frame. As such, our understanding of the Earth's climate is very limited. This is no argument for or against global warming, just a worried opinion that people usually only look at some very short time frame (compared to how old Earth is), as that is what we usually are capable of understanding.

- Burning carbon-based fuels and letting the pollution go to the sky is a very, very bad thing to do. I choose nuclear energy instead of burning carbon-based fuels. In properly operated nuclear energy production you don't let pollution to the sky, but you put it to a container and bury it underground in which it slowly, but surely becomes harmless. This waste does not go into peoples' and the nature's lungs unlike in the case of burning carbon-based fuels. Of the dangers of nuclear energy: it is not the techonology's fault if people misuse it like in the case of Chernobyl. The region I live in (in and around Tampere, Finland) received radioactive pollution from Chernobyl. It was raining here back then and many people received a dose of radioactive rain and had no idea it was dangerous. Situation was not any better because the stupid Soviets tried to hide their accident. We need to make sure the people operating nuclear power plants actually know what they are doing, exactly the opposite to Chernobyl. In a country like Finland, I have absolutely no problem with nuclear power plants.

- If burning carbon-based fuels is impossible to avoid in the near future, I would order all American-style gaz guzzler vehicles to be recycled and to be replaced with at least the level of vehicles as the European-style vehicles which are most often both smaller in size (less material used, less pollution from manufacturing) and also consume significantly less fuel.

- I would ban all hip-hop videos where Escalades and other gas guzzlers are advertized I would order hip-hop artists to advertize only bicycles in their videos.

Okay that's enough before I get too excited

Baddo

[Sc@tterbrain 0]

I found this rather amusing considering the climate debate.

Buenos Aires Gets First Snow Since 1918

"The snow followed a bitter cold snap in late May that saw subfreezing temperatures, the coldest in 40 years in Buenos Aires. That cold wave contributed to an energy crisis and 23 deaths from exposure."

I guess this will be pointed to as evidence for both sides, but could it also be just business as usual?

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

I found this rather amusing considering the climate debate.

Buenos Aires Gets First Snow Since 1918

"The snow followed a bitter cold snap in late May that saw subfreezing temperatures, the coldest in 40 years in Buenos Aires. That cold wave contributed to an energy crisis and 23 deaths from exposure."

I guess this will be pointed to as evidence for both sides, but could it also be just business as usual?

Yea, it could be everything.

Shinraiden, there are always bound to be some nutcases in all size and shapes - and some people just can't see the concequences of certain actions. Those people shouldn't have been in charge in the first place, though.

[Mr_Tea 0]

The climatic changes are all directly related to the activity of the sun.

Over the last four hundred years there was an up and down of the climate. The same up and down was reported for the sun activity.

CO2 did not caused the warming, the CO2 concentration went up after the temperatures get warmer, not before.

The warmer it gets the more CO2 is released from the oceans, the cooler it gets more CO2 is "stored" in the oceans.

Also, the more panic scientists produce the more money they get.

What are they doing with most of the money? They build really big computers to calculate the weather of the future, and how the climate may change.

Funny thing is, many of the scientists are 100% confident that this CO2 hysteria is pure nonsense.

We could cut down the CO2 output produced by man to zero, without having an impact to the climate change.

My two cents on that.

[RedNova 0]

2040: hopefully certain sub-species. *

[Gisen 0]

"I have not read any of the thread and just want to repeat lies and misinformation that have already been demolished in previous pages"

Please could you read the thread before posting things that are just plain wrong?

[kakagoegie 0]

"I have not read any of the thread and just want to repeat lies and misinformation that have already been demolished in previous pages"

Please could you read the thread before posting things that are just plain wrong?

Lol, Gisen. Don't you understand that saying things like this and using phrases like "anti-warming crowd" won't be helping you a bit. It will only sound like you're 12 or something. If you want to sound scientific and persuade other persons to share your beliefs act mature.

I personally ain't that worried about global warming. I'm more worried about how people react to it. Somehow I got the feeling that because of this hype now you ain't allowed to have different opinions about the subject. People who don't support the CO2 theorie are ridiculed (as you are doing all the time) and sometimes even threatened. We shouldn't forget the fact that lots of people benefit from the CO2 theorie.

What I personally don't get about the CO2 theorie is the amount of CO2 gasses. From what I've heard the majority of the greenhouse gasses is made up out of water vapor. CO2 is only a small part. How can this small part have caused such an increase in temperature? I'm personally in favor of reducing our energy consumption. I just don't want it to be done out of a wrong motive.

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

"I have not read any of the thread and just want to repeat lies and misinformation that have already been demolished in previous pages"

Please could you read the thread before posting things that are just plain wrong?

Lol, Gisen. Don't you understand that saying things like this and using phrases like "anti-warming crowd" won't be helping you a bit. It will only sound like you're 12 or something. If you want to sound scientific and persuade other persons to share your beliefs act mature.

I personally ain't that worried about global warming. I'm more worried about how people react to it. Somehow I got the feeling that because of this hype now you ain't allowed to have different opinions about the subject. People who don't support the CO2 theorie are ridiculed (as you are doing all the time) and sometimes even threatened. We shouldn't forget the fact that lots of people benefit from the CO2 theorie.

What I personally don't get about the CO2 theorie is the amount of CO2 gasses. From what I've heard the majority of the greenhouse gasses is made up out of water vapor. CO2 is only a small part. How can this small part have caused such an increase in temperature? I'm personally in favor of reducing our energy consumption. I just don't want it to be done out of a wrong motive.

Positive feedback loop, but please read the thread - cause it IS really a pain to explain it for the 20th time.

[Rhodite 3]

"I have not read any of the thread and just want to repeat lies and misinformation that have already been demolished in previous pages"

Please could you read the thread before posting things that are just plain wrong?

Gisen

If your going to quote someone don't edit what they said.

As an incentive to not even consider doing such again

+1WL and 48HR PR

The adding removing or compeltely changing a quote from someone is viewed very dimly here.

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

"I have not read any of the thread and just want to repeat lies and misinformation that have already been demolished in previous pages"

Please could you read the thread before posting things that are just plain wrong?

Gisen

If your going to quote someone don't edit what they said.

As an incentive to not even consider doing such again

+1WL and 48HR PR

The adding removing or compeltely changing a quote from someone is viewed very dimly here.

Maybe it was there before mr_tea edited is post?