Topic: Global warming and horse manure, is it the same thing?

[holysmokes]

i have the north atlantic within 30 miles of me, the gulfstream follows close to nova scotia

things have changed, muchly

our weather systems here are very hooked to the ocean temps, remember water warms quicker than solids

we now have extreme weather fluxuations, last week here it was -19 celcious, today its +8

[ieism]

I watched both "The Great Global Warming Swindle"  and "an unconvenient truth". I think both sides have a point, and the truth might be somewhere in the middle.

I can tell you a few things first hand, not from some documentary:

1. I live in Europe, our climate IS getting warmer. When I was a kid, i could go iceskating on lakes every year. It's been more then ten years now without ice.

2. The snow in our mountains is getting less, the skiing season is shorter than 10 years ago.

3. Floods and mudslides are more frequent and more severe now. This is a bad thing as much of my country is below sealevel and highly populated.

4. There are a lot off people in my country already, and still people have kids like there's no tomorrow. This doesn't make sense to me. Surely having a few billion extra people on the planet will have some effect on the environment?

[holysmokes]

when i went to elementary school , the school is 100 feet frrom a river

at dinner time we used to watch the atlantic salmon, jumping the dam
. hundreds of them

now there are 32 that go up every year, so few that they have them counted

a few years back, it was possible to drive a team of horses weighing over a ton apiece over any lake to haul logs, no ice now, and the little there wont support a 200lb white tail deer

i would dare anyone to drinkout of our brooks now, I used to, when i fished or hunted

alot of lakes arent fit to swim in, and are posted

growth hormones in our food chain has created overly large children, Ive seen 12 year olds , taller than me..
Im  5ft 10

girls having puberty at 12

air so dirty in cities, some days its unhealthy to breathe

mercury in salmon, pcbs if shell fish,aids in humans etc etc


 and IM not 50 years old yet
, the next 50 is gonna be much worse

if your back yard hasnt changed, it must be paradise or you have rose coloured glasses

[ofreen]

Cool, a global warming thread.  ha ha I am funny.

I think there is no doubt human activity is the cause of global warming.  Just as all those Martians driving around in their gas-guzzling SUVs are causing the Martian ice caps to recede.

[ofreen]

Something interesting to read for those that worship at Al Gore's altar.  This is just the tip of the iceberg.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm

[DammitDan]

Something interesting to read for those that worship at Al Gore's altar.  This is just the tip of the iceberg.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm

Once again, people are talking about the one disseminating the information and not the information itself.  Muckraking a someone's personal life to try to disprove what they're teaching...  Pfft.

[ieism]

I don't care for mr. Gore much, so I'm not saying he's a great guy but....
I think when you're driving a hybrid, recycle and compensate CO2 for your private jet as he does, you're doing a hell of a lot more than most people. At least he's trying to set the right example.
My mate knows a lot about windenergy (we call him proffessor windmill) and he told me it cost more energy to build the infrastucture than the damn things can save in it's lifespan. Solar panels are even worse in this respect.
And I sure like those electric cars al lot, but you have to wonder how the electricity is made that powers them.

[ofreen]

Once again, people are talking about the one disseminating the information and not the information itself.  Muckraking a someone's personal life to try to disprove what they're teaching...  Pfft.

Your point is well taken, but my point is that it doesn't appear that Gore believes it himself.  He certainly doesn't live like he does.  He lives the life of a rich man and enjoys all the benefits.  The whole "carbon buyback" stuff is a huge scam.  There is no accountability.  He can live his profligate lifestyle, pay a pittance for 'carbon buybacks,' and people buy into the scam and let him off the hook.  It all proves P. T. Barnum knew what he was talking about.

[Brent C.]

Once again, people are talking about the one disseminating the information and not the information itself.  Muckraking a someone's personal life to try to disprove what they're teaching...  Pfft.

Your point is well taken, but my point is that it doesn't appear that Gore believes it himself.  He certainly doesn't live like he does.  He lives the life of a rich man and enjoys all the benefits.  The whole "carbon buyback" stuff is a huge scam.  There is no accountability.  He can live his profligate lifestyle, pay a pittance for 'carbon buybacks,' and people buy into the scam and let him off the hook.  It all proves P. T. Barnum knew what he was talking about.

Carbon buyback??? just another name for "tax the rich"........are we going to make the indigenous people who still burn wood to cook their food buyback as well?? It is a huge scam that will only get bigger.

[DammitDan]

Carbon buyback??? just another name for "tax the rich"........are we going to make the indigenous people who still burn wood to cook their food buyback as well?? It is a huge scam that will only get bigger.

I think you're missing the point here...  Gore is doing it as a service to offset the pollution caused by his travels.  Corporations are doing it as a service to offset their production  pollution values (it's called moral duty).  It has nothing to do with "taxing the rich" (another conservative party line; thanks Karl!) and is completely voluntary.

When's the last time you planted a tree, Brent?

[ofreen]

Carbon buyback??? just another name for "tax the rich"........are we going to make the indigenous people who still burn wood to cook their food buyback as well?? It is a huge scam that will only get bigger.

I don't think it is a "tax the rich" scheme.  It is a scheme by which the rich can still indulge in their extravagant lifestyles while claiming they are zeroing out their contribution toward environmental degradation.  It is nothing but eyewash.  And people are going for it for some reason. 

[Brent C.]

Carbon buyback??? just another name for "tax the rich"........are we going to make the indigenous people who still burn wood to cook their food buyback as well?? It is a huge scam that will only get bigger.

I think you're missing the point here...  Gore is doing it as a service to offset the pollution caused by his travels.  Corporations are doing it as a service to offset their production  pollution values (it's called moral duty).  It has nothing to do with "taxing the rich" (another conservative party line; thanks Karl!) and is completely voluntary.

When's the last time you planted a tree, Brent?

I just helped plant about 20 or so.....no kidding...but that aside, The so called "offset" Gore is buying is a company he owns.......oh and no one else can buy them from his company....sounds legit to me, Also how is this so called "offset" money reduce Co2 emissions anyway if it is a dummy company??  Global warming is a religion.

[DammitDan]

I figured I'd offer up this page to the "A Global Warming Swindle" believers...

http://www.desmogblog.com/a-global-warming-swindle-play-by-play

Offers some insight into the "Inconvenient Truth" rebuttal film.

And as for the CO2 lagging behind temperature change?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13

[toycollector10]

I'm not feeling guilty and I'm not feeling afraid, much as the doom sayers would like me to be. It's a con.

[mlinder]

A few samples:

Cities around the world and their change in average tempuratures:

Alice Springs, Austrailia
From 1879-2003
20.5,  20.5

Clyde, NWT
From 1943-2004
-11.7, -12.8

Christchurch, NZ
From 1864-2003
11.4, 11.5

Rome, Italy
From 1811-1989
15.5, 15.6

Paris, Le Bourget
From 1757-1995
10.8, 10.5

Milano-Linate
From 1763-1986
12.8, 12.7

Stuttgart, Germany
from 1792-1999
10.0, 9.6

Navacerrada, Spain
From 1941-2004
7.0, 6.8

Goteborg, Sweden
From 1951-2004
7.3, 7.4


Kamenskoe, Siberia
From 1949, 1998
-6.7, -6.5

More soon, I will be choosing the Capitol, and 2 outlying smaller cities per State in the US of A. I will chose these randomly, one at about the same latitude as the capitol city, and one in another area..

Let's see how global warming looks then, eh?

[Rocking-M]

Hey Mlinder, looks like the average temps have dropped to me, am I reading this wrong?


What I've often wondered about is,

how did the natural cycle of things, such as massive forest fires of old,
contribute to climate variations over the years as opposed to the
relative "no fires" of today versus co2 produced by cars?

[Bob Wessner]

Of course it depends on which theory of global warming you read about, one of the consequences is a colder Europe as the Gulf Stream slows. In the future we may see snapshots of Raul and Steve wearing snow shoes.

[DammitDan]

A few samples:

Cities around the world and their change in average tempuratures:

I noticed you used different year sets for each of those examples.  Up to 200 years (range from 1757-1951?) apart for the first example year and up to 20 years apart (1986 to 2004?) for the second example year.

Wouldn't it seem logical to gather data from at least SIMILAR time periods for the former and CURRENT time periods for the latter?  (as in, 1750-1760 to 2004).  It's easy to skew data if you pick and choose which data to use and which data to throw out.

[mlinder]

Some of these do not have data going back very far.
I will make sure to use some longer, more closely related timelines in my US study.
Asias temp timelines are crazy though, they have incredible increases in Temps.
They also have incredible growth in city size where the temps are recorded, too.

[Ebrandon]

Here is the question I have for all you who don't believe that we are affecting the global climate:

Think about any population of animal that you want. Now what happens when that population is allowed to grow exponentially? It is always, without a doubt followed by a crash. This is the way it works. Too many in a population causes all sorts of problems be it from limited resources, rampent diesease...now no other species of animal on the planet has the same impact that humans do. No other species of animal has the ability to control their environment so that they can live any where on the planet. Out population is growing exponentially.



How can any one with any bit of sense think that we will not have a catastrophic effect on our environment (ie the world)? I don't understand what type of arrogance man has to have to think that we exist in some sort of vacuum on this planet. How can we NOT be effecting the globe? Climate, natural resources, waste. It is ludicrous, self-centered and irresposible to believe that we can can continue to do what ever we want with out taking in to consideration the consequences.

[mlinder]

Well, to argue semantics, you imply that we are #$%*ing up our world.
The world has been #$%*ed up many times, with no help from mankind.
What we are #$%*ing up (I agree toxic pollution is extremely harmful to our environment in the case of how well we can survive in it) is how well we can survive in the environment we are helping to create.
There is no real long term status quo of this planets climate or environment.
It's pretty much a foregone conclusion that the Earth itself could make it uninhabitable for us all by it's lonesome, without help from us.
As far as exponential growth of Humans, it won't happen in a sustained format. Why? Because we can't sustain it. We can't sustain what we have now. Look at all the impoverished countries, with starving people and rampant disease killing millions of people.
It will get worse, and no number of Gates Foundations or other 'philanthropic' communities can stop a natural reaction of overpopulation with underdeveloped communities of animals (humans being one of those.) The natural reaction to this is death, death, misery and death.

(EDIT: I should mention that while I am suspect of global warming, I DO think that the toxicity of our waste is a huge problem. These are TWO SEPARATE issues. This thread is about Global Warming[or lack thereof])

[Bob Wessner]

Here is the question I have for all you who don't believe that we are affecting the global climate:

Think about any population of animal that you want. Now what happens when that population is allowed to grow exponentially? It is always, without a doubt followed by a crash. This is the way it works. Too many in a population causes all sorts of problems be it from limited resources, rampent diesease...now no other species of animal on the planet has the same impact that humans do. No other species of animal has the ability to control their environment so that they can live any where on the planet. Out population is growing exponentially.



How can any one with any bit of sense think that we will not have a catastrophic effect on our environment (ie the world)? I don't understand what type of arrogance man has to have to think that we exist in some sort of vacuum on this planet. How can we NOT be effecting the globe? Climate, natural resources, waste. It is ludicrous, self-centered and irresposible to believe that we can can continue to do what ever we want with out taking in to consideration the consequences.

I was reading this in Nat'l Geographic some time back, thought you might be interested. Not sure that a sudden decline in population growth will not lead to other, unforseen problems, but doubt I will be around to observe. 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/08/0806_population.html

[DammitDan]

Well there's not really much more to say about global warming...  I watched the movie originally posted last night and it puts forward some interesting points, but when they start going into the whole "Damn commie bastard green peace eco freaks" conspiracy I had to turn it off.  I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories in general, and to suggest that the people who are touting global warming are simply doing so because they hate technology is ridiculous.

The only thing that caught my ear was the "carbon dioxide actually follows the trend of global warming" commentary.  And after looking into it, the theory seems to be supported (although not to the degree to which the documentary goes, suggesting CO2 has NOTHING to do with global warming).  The most logical argument I've found so far has been that it's true that CO2 actually follows the warming trend by several hundred years (over a several-thousand-year process, of course) but as the CO2 follows the initial temperature rise it acts as a catalyst (as the oceans warm, more CO2 is released) that throws the temperature even higher and turns the atmosphere into an E-Z Bake oven simply because of the heat-trapping qualities of the gas.

So, we know that CO2 levels are increasing at a higher rate than anytime in the earth's measurable history.  And that this rise can be attributed to man made global CO2 release (an undoubtedly un-natural process).  So my logical conclusion is that, even if CO2 in the NATURAL cycle follows the initial warming trend, if there is a jump-start caused by human pollution it will result in the same effect of global warming.

[mlinder]

Well there's not really much more to say about global warming...  I watched the movie originally posted last night and it puts forward some interesting points, but when they start going into the whole "Damn commie bastard green peace eco freaks" conspiracy I had to turn it off.  I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories in general, and to suggest that the people who are touting global warming are simply doing so because they hate technology is ridiculous.

The only thing that caught my ear was the "carbon dioxide actually follows the trend of global warming" commentary.  And after looking into it, the theory seems to be supported (although not to the degree to which the documentary goes, suggesting CO2 has NOTHING to do with global warming).  The most logical argument I've found so far has been that it's true that CO2 actually follows the warming trend by several hundred years (over a several-thousand-year process, of course) but as the CO2 follows the initial temperature rise it acts as a catalyst (as the oceans warm, more CO2 is released) that throws the temperature even higher and turns the atmosphere into an E-Z Bake oven simply because of the heat-trapping qualities of the gas.

So, we know that CO2 levels are increasing at a higher rate than anytime in the earth's measurable history.  And that this rise can be attributed to man made global CO2 release (an undoubtedly un-natural process).  So my logical conclusion is that, even if CO2 in the NATURAL cycle follows the initial warming trend, if there is a jump-start caused by human pollution it will result in the same effect of global warming.

We also know that the current amount of co2 and the amount we are dumping in can't create these catastrophic changes in climate that fanatical environmentalists want us to believe it will.
Hold onto that though, because after I get home tonight (which will be late) I will give you data on this.

[DammitDan]

By the way...  You never told me if you watched an Inconvenient Truth, mlinder