billvon 2,990
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
Recommended Posts
n23x 0
Selling sunscreen and snow cones, is my guess. 
.jim
.jim
"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC
Balls 0
QuoteOf course. One way to make that happen is to set up a condition that ends the CO2 imbalance; humans going extinct would solve that.
What if the last person alive leaves all the lights on?
----------------------------------------
....so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."
....so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."
Balls 0
Ok Bill as for actuall questions...
one of the sites someone posted (at the moment I'm too lazy to go back and find which one) showed a graph of the average temp for the last 1000 years. How acurate were our thermometers back then?
Someone mentioned the other day remembering back in the 70's there was a scare over global cooling. I googled it and found a few things, why the sudden change from "GLOBAL FUCKING COOLING IS GOING TO KILL US!!!" to "GLOBAL FUCKING WARMING IS GOING TO KILL US!!!".
my favorite quote from one of the sites: "A recent Washington Post article gave this scientist's quote from 1972. "We simply cannot afford to gamble. We cannot risk inaction. The scientists who disagree are acting irresponsibly. The indications that our climate can soon change for the worse are too strong to be reasonably ignored." The warning was not about global warming (which was not happening): it was about global cooling!"
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1034077.cms
My opinion, yes global warming is occuring, as to the cause I find it a little hard to believe that humans are playing as big a part as many people are saying. But I do admit that I don't know a whole lot about the topic.
Enlighten me
one of the sites someone posted (at the moment I'm too lazy to go back and find which one) showed a graph of the average temp for the last 1000 years. How acurate were our thermometers back then?
Someone mentioned the other day remembering back in the 70's there was a scare over global cooling. I googled it and found a few things, why the sudden change from "GLOBAL FUCKING COOLING IS GOING TO KILL US!!!" to "GLOBAL FUCKING WARMING IS GOING TO KILL US!!!".
my favorite quote from one of the sites: "A recent Washington Post article gave this scientist's quote from 1972. "We simply cannot afford to gamble. We cannot risk inaction. The scientists who disagree are acting irresponsibly. The indications that our climate can soon change for the worse are too strong to be reasonably ignored." The warning was not about global warming (which was not happening): it was about global cooling!"
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1034077.cms
My opinion, yes global warming is occuring, as to the cause I find it a little hard to believe that humans are playing as big a part as many people are saying. But I do admit that I don't know a whole lot about the topic.
Enlighten me
----------------------------------------
....so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."
....so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."
Scoop 0
I think the thought is that if its in the sea where 99% of the population can see it noone cares. If we saw woodland dying and rotting people would probably be more concerned.
"as to the cause I find it a little hard to believe that humans are playing as big a part as many people are saying"
All we need to do is 'tip the balance', human effects may not be entirely to blame, but we are contributing. In cases like this, its the little things that can make a huge difference.
All we need to do is 'tip the balance', human effects may not be entirely to blame, but we are contributing. In cases like this, its the little things that can make a huge difference.
--------------------
He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson
He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson
billvon 2,990
>If we saw woodland dying and rotting people would probably be more concerned.
---------------------
However, one of the largest outbreaks of insect-caused (spruce bark beetle) tree mortality in the history of North America has left most trees dead over ~3 million acres of forest land. Spruce bark beetle populations have historically been limited or kept in check by cool summers and cold winters, so rising temperatures (the most likely cause of the beetle outbreak) have not been beneficial in this case. Commercial forest value and many of the non-market values (e.g., recreational value) have been dramatically reduced over most of the region.
The sitka spruce/western hemlock rainforest of southeast Alaska is highly valued for timber, wildlife and fisheries habitat, and as the setting for rapidly expanding tourism and wilderness recreation. In southeast Alaska, the number of days with gale-force winds have more than doubled since 1950, increasing the risk of extensive tree blowdown. Warmer summer weather and extended rainless intervals have triggered outbreaks of the defoliating western black-headed budworm, and apparently have increased the number and duration of low stream flow episodes; it is these conditions that block the return of spawning salmon and generally limit municipal and industrial water supplies.
---------------------------
Most people in Alaska have little doubt that climate change is occurring - they can look out their windows and see it change. Whole towns have had to be relocated. Barrow, Alaska's days are numbered; the ice no longer protects their shores from storms, and the town is eroding away rapidly.
---------------------
However, one of the largest outbreaks of insect-caused (spruce bark beetle) tree mortality in the history of North America has left most trees dead over ~3 million acres of forest land. Spruce bark beetle populations have historically been limited or kept in check by cool summers and cold winters, so rising temperatures (the most likely cause of the beetle outbreak) have not been beneficial in this case. Commercial forest value and many of the non-market values (e.g., recreational value) have been dramatically reduced over most of the region.
The sitka spruce/western hemlock rainforest of southeast Alaska is highly valued for timber, wildlife and fisheries habitat, and as the setting for rapidly expanding tourism and wilderness recreation. In southeast Alaska, the number of days with gale-force winds have more than doubled since 1950, increasing the risk of extensive tree blowdown. Warmer summer weather and extended rainless intervals have triggered outbreaks of the defoliating western black-headed budworm, and apparently have increased the number and duration of low stream flow episodes; it is these conditions that block the return of spawning salmon and generally limit municipal and industrial water supplies.
---------------------------
Most people in Alaska have little doubt that climate change is occurring - they can look out their windows and see it change. Whole towns have had to be relocated. Barrow, Alaska's days are numbered; the ice no longer protects their shores from storms, and the town is eroding away rapidly.
billvon 2,990
>one of the sites someone posted (at the moment I'm too lazy to go
> back and find which one) showed a graph of the average temp for
> the last 1000 years. How acurate were our thermometers back then?
They didn't use thermometers. They used growth rings from trees, snow thicknesses from ice cores, underground thermal profiles, and coral growth to determine past temperatures, as well as historical observations of climate (i.e. days of snow, where grapes grew.) Accurate thermometers came into usage in about 1850.
>My opinion, yes global warming is occuring, as to the cause I find it
>a little hard to believe that humans are playing as big a part as
> many people are saying.
Well, the science that shows how CO2 increases average temperatures is well supported, and we can show easily that we are the ones driving the increase in CO2. And the increase in temperature fits those predictions. To think that we are NOT causing it, you'd have to postulate that some as-yet-undiscovered carbon sink is absorbing all the CO2 we are producing, and some other as-yet-undiscovered carbon source is putting exactly the same amount of CO2 back into the atmosphere. Which is more likely? Occam's Razor would seem to apply.
> back and find which one) showed a graph of the average temp for
> the last 1000 years. How acurate were our thermometers back then?
They didn't use thermometers. They used growth rings from trees, snow thicknesses from ice cores, underground thermal profiles, and coral growth to determine past temperatures, as well as historical observations of climate (i.e. days of snow, where grapes grew.) Accurate thermometers came into usage in about 1850.
>My opinion, yes global warming is occuring, as to the cause I find it
>a little hard to believe that humans are playing as big a part as
> many people are saying.
Well, the science that shows how CO2 increases average temperatures is well supported, and we can show easily that we are the ones driving the increase in CO2. And the increase in temperature fits those predictions. To think that we are NOT causing it, you'd have to postulate that some as-yet-undiscovered carbon sink is absorbing all the CO2 we are producing, and some other as-yet-undiscovered carbon source is putting exactly the same amount of CO2 back into the atmosphere. Which is more likely? Occam's Razor would seem to apply.
>Variation Theory", which does allow that greenhouse gases are
> accelerating the warming (like tossing on another blanket), but
> ALSO that the warming process as a whole is beyond our control.
Solar variation causes a 'radiative forcing' (i.e. imbalance in energy budget) of .3w/m^2 at worst. This is very easy to quantify; the solar panels on satellites measure this directly.
CO2 increases, at the current levels, cause a radiative forcing of ~2.4 watts per square meter, or 8 times what the solar variability does. So if CO2 is like adding a blanket, solar forcing is like adding one sock.
>That the Earth will eventually correct itself back to a
>balance like it has so many times in the billions of years of history.
Of course. One way to make that happen is to set up a condition that ends the CO2 imbalance; humans going extinct would solve that. Best hope that the earth's ecosystem is not _too_ good at correcting imbalances.
More likely we will simply kill a lot of people off, until a) there are fewer users of fossil fuels left or b) we finally figure out what they are doing to us and use something else. Again, it would be better if we figured it out before too many people die.
>Well, for one -- if it happened before humans came around, warming
> must be a NATURAL cycle.
It can be. A massive wave of vulcanism can cause a dramatic increase in CO2 and a resulting mass extinction. Again, is that really what you want to emulate? I mean, a meteor could kill us all in a massive fireball. Does that mean arson is natural, or that we shouldn't put out burning cities?
>And for another, well -- we're here, aren't we? Obviously
>our primordal slime-ooze, legged-fish, or ape ancestor lived thru it
>all to produce us, right?
Why yes! And why did we get our chance to _become_ us? Because a massive extinction about 65 million years ago killed off the previous dominant top predators. Another good reason to not have another massive extinction (unless you want us to get out of the way for the next dominant life on the planet, that is.)
>By the way, the people who cry loudest about **humans** causing
>global warming stand to gain money and power from the hysteria.
I will be most interested to hear you tell me how I will gain power and money through my belief that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the primary driving force behind climate change. (It's a nice sound bite, but effectively meaningless.)
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites