Global warming

And how do you know about Fourchon? Most in Louisiana don't know about that place! I'll be down there in a couple of weeks (work) Always pick up fresh shrimp when I'm in the area... great for Gumbo
<img src=

alt=

/>

Clayton

Yes we certainly have had some change over the years, Hannibal and his elephants were rumoured to have crossed the alps to conquer was it Asia, now to cross the alps with elephants one would have had to have a mimimum of snow which at the point he was rumoured to have crossed has definately not been the case for many a year. The Thames at London used to freeze over and yet only 20 years before, the Chilterns, which are only 20 miles from London, was a large wine growing region and grapes need lots of sun and hot weather to grow well.

Now as to recycling explain this one for me. We need lots of trees to hoover all the CO2 that we produce from all those gas guzzlers in the States and all those coal fired power stations in China and yet we are told to recycle paper. Where does paper come from, why trees of course, so if we recycle paper by dunking it in chemicals to get rid of the ink and then wash and heat it in even more chemicals to whiten it as no one would buy brown recycled paper, then surely there will be less demand for paper and by consequence less trees will be grown so even by more consequence less trees to hoover up all that bad CO2 ?

Just maybe we don't yet fully understand what mother nature is throwing at us.

The most concerning thing about global warming is the change in weather and climate not the rise in water. Northern Canadians might see disappearing arctic ice but Latin Americans see lethal storms and floods. The Europeans see glaciers disappearing, an increase in forest fires and fatal heat waves. Warmer oceans mean bigger hurricanes for us in the southern United States. My point is, it does not matter where you live or 'invest'. The affect is global.
Did you know that 19 of the warmest 20 years on record have been since 1980?

Open Artic seas in summer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/12/science/earth/12arcti.html

And the record goes back to when? Lets see the earth is several million years old... man is not that old... evidence of previous ice ages... what caused those? Latest report I read shows that

COWS

not man emits more damaging gas (methane) that all of the fossil fuel burning means of transportation etc put together. SO LETS EAT THE COWS!!!
<img src=

alt=

/>
Now we've resorted to listening to POLITICIANS telling us what they think about the ozone and green house gasses. The SCIENTISTS can't agree, what makes us think the Politicians know what they are talking about!

Seriously, every report I've seen has a counter report disputing it. Bottom line, we need to protect our enviroment so our children can enjoy the earth as we have.

Peace to all!!

Merry Christmas! To all that celebrate the birth of Christ!
Happy Holidays to those that do not!
<img src=

alt=

/>
Clayton

Any of you seen

Inconvenient Truth

? It made me re-evaluate my conceptions a bit.

our water seems a bit cooler out here too. is it because of all the ice that is melting?
no one has mentioned the concept of the sun flares which are creating more heat these days. even mars is hotter theses days according to scientists. no global tax could solve a prolem like that.
the inconvineint truth has the facts backwards acording to some analysts. increased co2 follows a global warming rather than causing it like the movie says. these globalist elite are famous for manipulating data to falsely prove their point. the magic bullet theory being a fine example of this technique.
the movie also fails to mention weather manipulation, which has been popular since th 60's and maybe before that. there have been russian scientists coming forward saying it was their job to make sure it didn't rain on the big parade. all different countries seeding clouds and monkeying with the weather could have unknow effects on someone else's weather.
the movie implies man is responsible for the warming, but many are saying man is only responsible for 2-6% of the change. cutting down trees any paving couldn't be helping the air quality. that would be like cutting out a lung on a person.
if they can gain some traction with the man made global warming theory and institute a global tax we would be that much closer to a global government. but would the taxmoney help cool the planet, or would it pay for weapons?

Agreed - C02 levels and global temperature go hand in hand but how does a sun flare create more C02 exactly? Secondly, how can you explain that C02 levels right now are significantly higher than they have been in 40,000 years on this planet? Can you actually show me the scientific nay-sayers? I looked and am having difficulty actually finding the ones that have scientific background (and are not reporters or political in nature). Sure, I've found people that debate some of the details, but nobody that says that our technology isn't adversely influencing the planet.

Wow Jake.

You let Al Gore's propaganda piece get to you?

You know Al buys his

Carbon Credits

(to reduce his carbon footprint from his 20-room, $1500/mo electric bill mansion in Tennessee) from ... his own company.

Remember, always be skeptical of anyone purporting to be claiming

the truth

.

Actually their is a very simple reasoning that show the invalidate of any argument that go along the lines of

Earth is so and so many million years old and back then ....

The Earth is 5 billion years old and for 60 % of the time it was a hot rocks surrounded by a poisonous cloud of surfur and other acid like components. Life didn't exist back then and carbon based lifeforms are ill equipped to survive in those conditions. That is despite the fact that some micro organism have managed to evolve into a beings that can survive harsh climates as volcanous and underwater hot vents. Both of which are downright fatal to 99 % of all other organism on this planet.

The operative section here is

... evolved into ...

. This means that they had many generations to slowly adapt themselfs to live in these hot acid conditions. This, my sceptic friends is impossible for complex organisms like human beings to accomplish within a time frame of say less then a million years (=about 3000 generations). Therefor any significantly alteration of the conditions here on earth that proceeds faster then that time frame will have a very good chance of leading to extinction of the human species. EVEN THOUGH THE EARTH ITSELF AND IT FLORA AND FAUNA SURVIVED SIMILAR CONDITIONS JUST FINE IN ITS PAST.

Additionally, even if the human design can sustain itself in these new conditions then our societal structured may well not do so if the change is rapidly enough.

Maybe the environmental reports need to come with a similar disclaimer as the stock exchange advertisements. Results achieve in the past pose no garantee for the future.

Pretty much change is a given here on Earth and yes human beings do evolve continiously to adapt to these changing conditions, but it can only do so at a relatively slow speed. If the changes are much faster then that, ... well I think you see the problem here.

In todays worlds with our rigid societal structure we can't just pack up shop and move en masse to a different spot on the earth where conditions are more favourable. To local populace will not accept their own survival to be japordized by the refugies. The direct result will be wars and a whole lot of violance while the world at large readjusts to the new conditions. Probably decimating the human population at the same time.

And for what reason exactly ? Because people like reborn christian Bubba refuse to drive any sissy japanese car that gets a better mileage then the standard US V6 3 liter overweight pick-up truck.

Basically some dumb hack feels he is entitled to

risk it all

because he ... well, indeed, because he is what exactly ?

Ohh, how stupid of me to forget. Because he will not witness the hardships as the rapture will wisk him away just in time.

And I'm with Jake on this one. I have yet to find some peer-reviewed scientist to claim that the environmental problems are mere conjecture. There is an abundance of

think-tank

related pseudo scientist however and we all know how dependable they have turned out to be lately.

Wouter

One can only hope that you become a hood ornament on a truck such as this.

Al Gore exhales CO2. Everyone must do what they can but...Gore can't

Walk the walk

from tennesseepolicy.org

Guys, I would like to start a movement to stop the next ice age. 2 degrees colder for us in canada means 2km of ice on our head. no thanks.

Fine, but this is all static. Debate with me the fact that humans are dramatically increasing C02 on the planet and that the US is the worst, by FAR, contributor. Not only that, but even IF all this is crap, we're in the back of the classroom on even considering the ramification's and acting to try and do what we can.

You can't guarantee me that our influence on the atmosphere isn't going to throw us into some pretty dramatic climate changes. On the other hand, neither can those who say that our influences are going to make dramatic differences. However, given that if one of the two sides is correct, we're about to experience some pretty tough times as a species, wouldn't you err on the side of caution?

As he is a politician, I tend to disregard anything they say as

truth

. I also agree that if someone that utilizes more energy in a year than I will use in my life shouldn't be telling me that

I

need to cut back. Give me a break!!!

That doesn't mean toss out the baby with the bath water, we should all be mindful of

our

world but how do we get correct and

truthful

information. Last I heard was that COWS are causing the global warming with all their flatulance! <img src=

alt=

/> I say eat more cows reduce the gas!

WHATEVER... give me something I can really believe as truth and I'm behind ya, otherwise lets go sailing!!!!

Clayton

Yeah, I drive a TRUCK! But its what I work in/with.

So let's see...

Solar flare activity on the sun is on the upswing trend.

More solar radiation causes minor increases in seasonal temperature averages

Atmospheric temperature increases influence sea temperature

70% of earth's surface is water. Most CO2 ends up in the ocean (as various species - HCO3, H2CO3, CaCO3, etc)

Solubility of CO2 in seawater is strongly inverse of its temperature (decreases as temperature rises)

CO2 comes out of solution and enters atmosphere

Increased CO2 acts to hold in radiative heat from land mass

I'm not getting in to the political debat as to whether man controls global warming or not...

I think that humans are contributing to the problem, but not to the extent that nature is. That being said, I doubt it is our power to control the phenomenon

The CEO of Shell says we've got at least 50 years of oil left (at current production) before the company has to consider itself as

something other than an oil company

, which I interpret as the point when alternative fuel production outpaces petroleum production.

So, we could very well see a shift in the petroleum based economy in our lifetime (or at least in our progeny's lifetime)

Perhaps the question is

are you on the leading edge or the trailing edge of this next shift?

I presume Bubba and his truck will be on the trailing edge, and need government support until he finally has to conform to the new paradigm.

From Jake:

given that if one of the two sides is correct, we're about to experience some pretty tough times as a species, wouldn't you err on the side of caution?

Your premise assumes that the increase in CO2 is going to cause major negative changes in a short period of time which is very debated. That the earth is getting warmer is acknowledged, however, one should remember that is was very much warmer in the middle ages (Greenland was called that for a good reason; it wasn't just clever marketing by Eric the Red). There was also a mini ice age in colonial times.

Second, every action/decision is essentially an economic one wherein cost/benefit analyses are made. For example, we can drastically reduce, if not eliminate, highway fatalities (numbering in the 10s of thousands per year in the US) by setting a 30mph speed limit everywhere. We don't do that because the costs are too great for the benefits achieved (we as a country are willing to sacrifice thousands of lives for the greater benefits of driving faster than 30mph). The

greenies

don't apply any such analysis to the warming situation. The mantra seems to be,

climate change is bad, doubly so if humans have anything to do with it, so we must stop it at any costs

.

The third problem I see is that it is, as you point out, not sure that measures to limit CO2 output will have any effect.

You state that given the terrible consquences (not proven) we should take these steps. However, if one looks closely at the possible outcomes of fully implementing CO2 controls (applying the Kyoto agreements?) very severe economic consequences may follow that could devastate 3rd world economies.

One should remember that 99 members of congress in a democratic administration refused to ratify the Kyoto agreements because they understood that they had very negative consequences for the US economy. This agreement also didn't address the coming major contributor, China, which is now obviously making the biggest increases in CO2 output, and polution.

The

greenies

hubris in thinking that they can control the earth's temperature is stunning. The UN statement that they will mandate that temperatures rise no more than 2 degrees over the next 20 years (I think that time frame is correct) shows great ignorance or psychopathic delusion. One would not have to be a

reborn Christian bubba

, or paranoid to think that there might just be another agenda at work here; increasing statism in the world, inflicting a blow to capitalism and the US in particular (as the greatest example of the success of capitalism and democracy, as imperfect as it is).

Postscript; a well credentialed atmospheric scientist has recently stated a hypothesis that he researched and discovered much evidence to support, which is that greenhouse gasses actually are a mechanism by which the earth is kept from getting too hot. Quite the opposite from what is being shouted today. Just another example of the lack of certainty of the warming proponent's theories.

David
A cat and big cat

OK...so at what point would you guys suggest consideration should be given to change? When Greenland is completely unfrozen? When the ice caps are gone? At what point is it too late to affect change? You've gone from

there's no problem

to

even if there is a problem, there's nothing we can do about it so we shouldn't try

.

Look, I was a really big skeptic at the beginning of the film and I really annoyed Bonnie by going

yeah, well...he says that but you can look at that another way

through half of the thing. While there are some disputable pieces of information, there are some really interesting points...BIG points about how our current administration looks at the

economics

of the Kyosho treaty. How we make make and accept excuses that for our auto makers to make more fuel efficient cars would be to destroy the big automakers. Also how the freakin' head of a petroleum institute becomes ecological adviser, makes a huge ethical mistake by

editing

a scientific report, resigns, and goes to work for Exxon the very next day, and so on. Big oil is at the top and as long as they are making the determination of what is too much of an

economical consequence

(Kyosho Treaty), that's going to mean of consequence to the oil industry...not you and not me. Cars are still going to sell if they get 50 mpg. Electricity might get a little more expensive, but I'll still be designing and selling case packing equipment. It's the oil that will not sell in the same vast quantities if we become more efficient. We are glaringly falling behind the rest of the world in this respect.

I would like you skeptics to watch the thing, then come back and discuss. At the very least, it stays relatively entertaining (and the guy is refreshingly capable of speaking coherently)

I usually try to learn much about both sides of an issue before making a judgement, and if this film is truely of a scientific (and not editorial) nature, I'd be in line to see it.

Everyon'e got an agenda these days, and no one has the time to develop their own opinion. I mean, really, who out there has read ALL of that literature? Isn't it much easier to just swallow what someone else puts together?

Hell, we've got more talk about which F18 design is faster, and you'd think that the answer would be cut and dried stuff - based on engineering fact.

This is the best documentary I've seen on the subject.
Explains correlations (or supposed correlations-Al Gore)
I'd like to hear a debate on the topic without the rhetoric.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...indle&hl=en

I'm not sure if the prior link worked so I will try again.

If it doesn't type Great Global Warming Swindle in Google and you'll find it.......

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831&q=great+global+warming+swindle

Just came across this news article.
Danish scientist: Global warming is a myth
COPENHAGEN, Denmark, March 15 (UPI) -- A Danish scientist said the idea of a

global temperature

and global warming is more political than scientific.

University of Copenhagen Professor Bjarne Andresen has analyzed the topic in collaboration with Canadian Professors Christopher Essex from the University of Western Ontario and Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph.

It is generally assumed the Earth's atmosphere and oceans have grown warmer during the recent 50 years because of an upward trend in the so-called global temperature, which is the result of complex calculations and averaging of air temperature measurements taken around the world.

It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth,

said Andresen, an expert on thermodynamics.

A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate

.

He says the currently used method of determining the global temperature -- and any conclusion drawn from it -- is more political than scientific.

The argument is presented in the Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics.

Jake; you continue to speak from the point of view of the Gore movie. Greenland was WAY warmer in the middle ages, as I said before, and the ice cap didn't all melt. It is not proven that extremely bad things will happen if the earth gets warmer, it is not proven that the earth is getting seriously warmer, and it is definitely not proven that mankind can do anything about it if it is getting warmer.

Bullswan; debate is rhetoric. I'm trying to insert some economic reality into a point of view generated by an hysterical documentary.

Jake; if it is all big oil's fault and we are their victims as you indicate, then we should all run to the

greenies

to save us and tell us how to live? You say

cars are still going to sell if they get 50 mpg.

Some do now and they don't sell. Should we not let the free market work? Many don't think we should because we are not smart enough to know what is good for us. Let's let some elite group decide how we should live? That has been tried for ages and always seems to come up bad for the average citizen. Here is a quote from C.S. Lewis, one of those

reborn Christian bubbas

although as a professor of Medieval Languages at Oxford, I doubt he was very bubba-like.

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

Words of wisdom. Certainly you are correct that we should all try to live in a more environmentally friendly fashion; no one would seriously dispute the wisdom of that point of view. And raising everyone's conciousness regarding such a lifestyle is good. But I don't think we should all forget the cost/benefit analyses we make, both as individuals and as a society in our decisions.

David
A-Cat and big cat

Bullswan; great link for an alternate view to Gore's film; even more since it comes from the BBC.

Thanks,
David
A-Cat, big cat

Agreed, good video. And... with names of scientists that disagree, unless of course they are not who they say they are. Maybe Gore is smarter than all of them? (don't take this too seriously!)
<img src=

alt=

/>
Clayton

bullswan,

Thanks for the link to the

documentary

, it was excellent. As I get older I'm hoping the current trend (warming) continues.

Jake,

Do yourself a favor and take Bonnie to the movies again, bullswan's buying.

Now, if you can somehow cash-in and get money to advocate catamaran sailing as the only viable alternative to keep thrill seeking bubba on the water, and off of PWC's and powerboats...

Okay I will come out and say it.

That BBC documentary is just as fast and loose with science as it being said about Al Gore's documentary.

Now I'm not totally hot on Al Gore's version either, but that doesn't mean that it proposes things that can only have good outcomes. It is at least more careful to not risk too much.

I'll always amused myself about how normal folk first demand complex things to be exlained by simple means only to come later at you with the accusation that what you have given them is

fast and loose

with hardcore science. How many of you would have watched the whole Al Gore presentation if he had provided 90 minutes of hardcore science ?

Also this whole debate always reminds me of a commercial that used to be shown on Dutch Television back in the 80's, putting across the message of WWF wildlife preservation.

You see a family of neatherthaler humans sitting around a fire in a cave eating roosted meat of the bone. Then the teenager of the family rushes in and grunts (which gets translated by subtitles) :

Each day it is harder to find new Mammoths, we have to do something !

. The family as a whole suddenly stops eating looks up at the teenage with a totally bewildered expression on their faces. The teenage continues :

They could become extinct and then ...

. then he gets interrupted by a thunderous laughter of the family. One family member grunts ;

Crazy Uhah never fails to amaze me ! Next time he'll say that elephant are about to go extinct

To which another family members enthousiastic replies :

And there are many many more of those around !

which caused another round of hysterical laughter. Then during the uproar grandfather mumbles :

or even us ...

Then the camera pans out as the family gets back into devouring their food with total devotion, leaving the teenager totally bewildered in turn.

Wouter

In the past the world used to be covered with forests and swamps.

During the last 1000 years the amount of forests have been decimated, but it is indeed a stretch to far claim that humans have caused this with lumbering.

Afterall who is not to say that some solar flare is the cause of this miraculously but natural decline in foolage ?

Don't be stupid. Of course does man have the power these days to influence anything that goes on on this earth. We can even totally destroy it within 24 hours if we launched all the H-boms in a wide spread pattern.

The thing at the discussion here is not so much that man with cause the climate of the earth to totally change ONLY due to man made cause but that man triggers some inbalance that could well lead to very rapid and significant changes in the climate that our modern societies can not adjust too in time.

That my friends does not seem to be a far stretched idea. At least it is considered real enough that the Dutch are planning a new series of dykes and coastal defenses to be ready if it does happen. Premature ? Maybe, but better safe then sorry right ? Why allow a New Orleans to happen when you have the means to prevent it ?

Wouter

Wouter,

if the worst comes to pass, there is plenty of room for you in the northern territories here in Norway, and we could really need you industrious people up there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnmark

I guess even the climate would be suitable for you if the oceans rise that much.

Global warming is happening. How it was started does not matter. The fact is it is now on the way and we will not stop it.
Catastrophic weather event proof society..that is the
where we need to go. Present phone and internet etc is in trouble.

Only problem is that with global warming the gulf stream will end and this will cause new ice age for us <img src=

alt=

/>

--
Valtteri