global warming

[1sty]

simple way that we collect methane from a long time ago when we obviously weren''t doing so because we couldn't, it's all in the ice. Take ice samples at different layers which can be identified and placed in a time scale and then do test cause air is trapped in there and measure the methane and nitrogen and other levels of gases in the air.

Ok, I get that, BUT, if the earth is cooling and heating, then wouldn't the ice formed during cooling with a given molecular make up, thaw out and evaporate during a warming cycle?

Its one of those things I have a feeling we are too knew at to accuratly measure and there really isn't anything to certify that its a correct or incorrect set of knows and variables we are measuing off of. Again, I will admit my ignorance on this issue aswell.

 

[vindication]

It is accurately measured along with other things. I went over this in my upper division Ecology class last semester with my professor which was a Dr. I was trying to get the info from some of the lectures but it was taken down. I really wont state the facts right now cause I dont remember them 100% and I dont want to mess something up. All I remember is that we ARE speeding up the global warming very fast and it isn't the same as what would happen in a natural earth cycle.

 

[1sty]

It is accurately measured along with other things. I went over this in my upper division Ecology class last semester with my professor which was a Dr. I was trying to get the info from some of the lectures but it was taken down. I really wont state the facts right now cause I dont remember them 100% and I dont want to mess something up. All I remember is that we ARE speeding up the global warming very fast and it isn't the same as what would happen in a natural earth cycle.

With or without the inclusion of the MAJOR volcanic eruption we are do for?

 

[joesturbo]

I went over this in my upper division Ecology class last semester with my professor which was a Dr.

Do you think that by chance, the information that is supplied and taught is tainted? Where does this information come from that your professor is teaching about? What is his stance on the issue and is he objective? Even one of the founders of Greenpeace has stated the Global Warming issue has been exaggerated and changed from the original thesis. The original issue was to stop excess pollution, and then political entities took off and ran with the issue. The only way to get attention was to put a spin on the data with nothing less then doom and gloom and the end of life as we know it. Fast forward 20 years, and all of a sudden kids are learning about this issue and taught as if it is all Fact. We don't have enough data to prove anything one way or another.

I believe the true focus should be to have cleaner air to breath and a better environment i.e. water etc. Who could argue with that? And if you know anything about emission levels, they have increased since the 60s over 700%. That is getting next to CrAzY, and you wonder why cars are increasing in cost so much.

Also for the person who posted that the U.S. is the biggest contributor to pollution, look up your stats again. It is true that we are one of the largest users of energy no doubt, but look at some of the other countries. Mexico, India, & China for example, on a satellite images they show the worst pollution know to man I have seen several data related sites showing where the pollution is the worst, and the U.S. is not one of them. We have done much to clean up our act here.

Recent news of Rick Warren (author of "The Purpose Driven Life") who has recently petitioned the President about doing something about global warming really disappointed me... and that usually gets me to do a little research... Global warming is junk science.... and anyone who promotes it has to have an agenda, or is looking for something to worry about, it just does not hold up when using any scientific method...

Is the climate warming? Maybe a little bit, but there is no evidence that it is not in a normal cycle... we simply do not have enough data... Joe Bastardi from Accuweather says we have 50 years of "hard" data and only 100ish years of "soft" data for global temperatures.. simply not enough to come to any conclusions scientifically. And the number of scientists and meteorologists who believe in global warming are highly misrepresented.

It is the panic and tears that bother me, the "caring" people who just want to save the planet from all of us who do not "care"... and the little kids who cannot sleep because of what they are "learning" in school. Do we need to pollute less? Yes, it is only responsible... but to induce panic and fear over things that we cannot control or may not even be true is far less responsible than driving a big SUV with only one passenger.

here are links:

http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html

http://www.akdart.com/warming.html

http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm

http://www.junkscience.com/july04/Daily_Mail-Bellamy.htm

https://www.amazon.com (commissions earned)

P.S. I remember back in the seventies when everyone was worried about the coming Ice Age.... I used to read Popular Science and it was a continual topic for years.

 

[Kansei]

Just because global warming claims are exaggerated doesn't mean we should sit back and keep polluting like we do.

I say we remove New Jersey from the union, physically. At least northern Jersey, driving through places like Newark makes me want to vomit.

Whether or not it is a threat of impending doom, we should still work to lessen our impact.

Damnit, when are we going to get some low-sulpher diesel in the states so that I can buy myself a small turbodiesel-electric hybrid hatchback.

Oh and I don't remember who talked about an emissions tax on the first page, but that's an excellent idea. The problem is, how many members of congress drive big SUVs AND are lobbied by ExxonMobil? What are the chances of getting them to pass anything that benefits people who consume less oil?

 

[1sty]

Oh and I don't remember who talked about an emissions tax on the first page, but that's an excellent idea. The problem is, how many members of congress drive big SUVs AND are lobbied by ExxonMobil? What are the chances of getting them to pass anything that benefits people who consume less oil?

The problem is not the government or the gas companies, its the general population that continue to buy bigger cars and trucks with worse fuel economy even though we are near $3/gallon nationaly. Hell look at the Hummer line up. They are all worse then the chevy's they are based on for fuel economy but idiots keep buying them. Then there is also the dozen new hemi crysler/dodge cars that are getting more and more powerful all while not really even paying attention to fuel economy.

Another problem is that the government often makes idiotic policies that force additives into gas that lower pollution per gallon burned but are less effecient so milage actualy goes down causing a net increase in pollution while costing us more at the pumps. But so long as this jack ass soccer moms need a lincoln navigator for there one kid...we are all screwed.

 

[Kansei]

The problem is not the government or the gas companies, its the general population that continue to buy bigger cars and trucks with worse fuel economy even though we are near $3/gallon nationaly. Hell look at the Hummer line up. They are all worse then the chevy's they are based on for fuel economy but idiots keep buying them. Then there is also the dozen new hemi crysler/dodge cars that are getting more and more powerful all while not really even paying attention to fuel economy.

Another problem is that the government often makes idiotic policies that force additives into gas that lower pollution per gallon burned but are less effecient so milage actualy goes down causing a net increase in pollution while costing us more at the pumps. But so long as this jack ass soccer moms need a lincoln navigator for there one kid...we are all screwed.

And one way to dissuade people from buying bigger cars and trucks is to tax them. Put a tax on buying any car or truck with below average gas mileage.

Fine car companies for not getting their average gas mileage across their car lineup up to a certain level by a certain year. Nothing will stop idiots from buying huge SUVs with huge engines that they don't need, but fining automakers might make them think twice before making next year's model "bigger and faster".

I do my part, but I know that I'm barely making a difference in the grand scheme. I wish there was more I could do. I drive an economical little 4 cylinder, I buy recycled, I eat organic, and I use energy efficient lighting. When the weather and my schedule allow it, I ride my mountain bike to campus. All that I do is far outweighed by just one person driving their Suburban eating their mcdonalds and not recycling. Why do people just care about themselves? I know it is human nature (I'm a Psych minor) but somehow I manage. Maybe it isn't about caring about only yourself, but just caring about immediate satisfaction and not planning for the future.

At least most of us on here drive ULEV proteges. I was reading up on exactly what ULEV means in Car and Driver or one of those magazines where they compared the hybrid vs. non hybrid models of the Escape, the Civic, and the Camry, and they said that a ULEV car will actually clean the air in most urban environments.

 

[vindication]

Do you think that by chance, the information that is supplied and taught is tainted? Where does this information come from that your professor is teaching about? What is his stance on the issue and is he objective? Even one of the founders of Greenpeace has stated the Global Warming issue has been exaggerated and changed from the original thesis. The original issue was to stop excess pollution, and then political entities took off and ran with the issue. The only way to get attention was to put a spin on the data with nothing less then doom and gloom and the end of life as we know it. Fast forward 20 years, and all of a sudden kids are learning about this issue and taught as if it is all Fact. We don't have enough data to prove anything one way or another.

I believe the true focus should be to have cleaner air to breath and a better environment i.e. water etc. Who could argue with that? And if you know anything about emission levels, they have increased since the 60s over 700%. That is getting next to CrAzY, and you wonder why cars are increasing in cost so much.

Also for the person who posted that the U.S. is the biggest contributor to pollution, look up your stats again. It is true that we are one of the largest users of energy no doubt, but look at some of the other countries. Mexico, India, & China for example, on a satellite images they show the worst pollution know to man I have seen several data related sites showing where the pollution is the worst, and the U.S. is not one of them. We have done much to clean up our act here.

Recent news of Rick Warren (author of "The Purpose Driven Life") who has recently petitioned the President about doing something about global warming really disappointed me... and that usually gets me to do a little research... Global warming is junk science.... and anyone who promotes it has to have an agenda, or is looking for something to worry about, it just does not hold up when using any scientific method...

Is the climate warming? Maybe a little bit, but there is no evidence that it is not in a normal cycle... we simply do not have enough data... Joe Bastardi from Accuweather says we have 50 years of "hard" data and only 100ish years of "soft" data for global temperatures.. simply not enough to come to any conclusions scientifically. And the number of scientists and meteorologists who believe in global warming are highly misrepresented.

It is the panic and tears that bother me, the "caring" people who just want to save the planet from all of us who do not "care"... and the little kids who cannot sleep because of what they are "learning" in school. Do we need to pollute less? Yes, it is only responsible... but to induce panic and fear over things that we cannot control or may not even be true is far less responsible than driving a big SUV with only one passenger.

here are links:

http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html

http://www.akdart.com/warming.html

http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm

http://www.junkscience.com/july04/Daily_Mail-Bellamy.htm

https://www.amazon.com (commissions earned)

P.S. I remember back in the seventies when everyone was worried about the coming Ice Age.... I used to read Popular Science and it was a continual topic for years.

she has done research and written peer review papers. I am not someone who just agrees with every professor, but in this case I do.

 

[eting_pro5]

Hummers more efficient than Prius.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060329/OPINION03/603290310/1149/AUTO03

 

[MiaTurbo]

I'm not worried. when the super-volcano under Yellowstone Nat'l park erupts, the ash and sulfer in the atmoshphere will help lower the climate by about 10*c. and kill a few billion people in the process. Mother Earth will help even it all out. So no worries.

wooz wooz!

 

[NVP5White]

I'm glad to see a discussion on these boards that's based on facts and thoughtful responses. Based on the back and forth we've taken on the subject, I think it is obvious there is no clear conclusion, and that if we ever learn what is really happening currently it will probably be well after the point we can do anything about it. I suppose the point is, lets not play Russian Roulette with the planet. I'm not saying give-up the dino-burning cars, but we should at least put a propoer economic price to the pollution that is no doubt being pumped into the atmosphere. Maybe this pollution will turn the planet into an uninhabitable rock. Maybe nothing will come of it. But like 1sty said, I don't want my sky looking like LA...and its already too close to not take action immediately.

BTW, the US may not "pollute" more than some countries when considering things like mercury, arsenic, etc. But quite simply, we use multiple times as much energy as any other country. In fact, the 33 countries that make us Europe and East-Aisia (with a population over 600 million people!), including the former Soviet Union, use just 25% more energy than the US. We get this energy from fossil fuels primarily and that creates pollution byproducts in greater quantity then any other country. CO, CO2, NOX...the US is the prime contributor.

 

[DeadGeneration]

Hey, it's not our problem, it's our kid's problem. Let them figure it out.

 

[Kansei]

Hey, it's not our problem

Depends on how old you are. I just turned 20 so I think this will be my problem sadly.

 

[JOS3]

with the current direction the planet is headed and the current state of world affairs, it seems almost cruel to bring a child into the world

 

[vindication]

thats like from the movie Seven. Great movie

 

[SciFiMan]

To little done, to late

I also think that the Earth has it's own cycles, and we just haven't had a very long recorded science history to trend the data. However, I DO believe that humans have started to affect the natural cycles. Don't know where it will end up. Hopefully there won't be one Tipping Point like in the movie The Day After Tomorrow, where we reach a point of fast change. But knowing humans, I doubt anything will be done until it's to late. Probably the future Mars Colony will be all that's left of us. To little, to late.

 

[SciFiMan]

I hope your balls get cut off before you get a chance to breed! And please don't ever be in a position to set public policy.

Hey, it's not our problem, it's our kid's problem. Let them figure it out.

 

[MiaTurbo]

I also think that the Earth has it's own cycles, and we just haven't had a very long recorded science history to trend the data. However, I DO believe that humans have started to affect the natural cycles. Don't know where it will end up. Hopefully there won't be one Tipping Point like in the movie The Day After Tomorrow, where we reach a point of fast change. But knowing humans, I doubt anything will be done until it's to late. Probably the future Mars Colony will be all that's left of us. To little, to late.

humans have had a big impact. We've cut the trees and covered a big part of the surface of the earth with asphault, conrete, and glass. The Earth does have cycles, but as you said, we seem to be helping speed things up.

 

[Fear]

Freeze all the CO2 and shoot it into space.

.

 

[Kansei]

.

And shoot it up into space with an electric jet or something? I bet someone has thought of this but the environmental impact of sending a load like that up into space and of constructing the craft to do it and all the fuel (crazy amount of fuel) would probably outweigh any benefit.