Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 6/7/2002 8:08:19 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/7/2002 8:15:59 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/7/2002 8:30:12 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Sweep: [url]I don't think humnas caused that increase! Unless the cave men were using large amounts of methane gas to propel themselves on those unicycles like the one in the comic strip "B.C."
View Quote
Maybe they were lighting their own farts...[:D]
Link Posted: 6/7/2002 8:40:40 AM EDT
I think my hairspray is causing global warming. Seriously though, Smog levels in big American cities has gotten much better since the 60's, yet according to the enviromentalist wackos fossil fuels are still causing global warming. I don't buy it. I think it's a natural ecological shift in temperature. Twenty years from now we will be back to worrying about an ice age again as we were in the 70's. Some people just need a cause to fight for. I wish they would drop this global warming crap and fight for the right to keep and bear arms.
Link Posted: 6/7/2002 8:43:16 AM EDT
My Dog running around "sneaking" the cats food, man those farts are BAAAAAAADDDDDD![PUKE]
Link Posted: 6/7/2002 9:10:59 AM EDT
Originally Posted By dolphin72: I think my hairspray is causing global warming. Seriously though, Smog levels in big American cities has gotten much better since the 60's, yet according to the enviromentalist wackos fossil fuels are still causing global warming. I don't buy it. I think it's a natural ecological shift in temperature. Twenty years from now we will be back to worrying about an ice age again as we were in the 70's. Some people just need a cause to fight for. I wish they would drop this global warming crap and fight for the right to keep and bear arms.
View Quote
I think the reduction in industrial pollution in the last few decades has been key in reducing smog. That accounted for a lot of the smog, and cars accounted for a smaller part. Cut out the largest contributer, and smog will go down. Excellent! However, I think that there is still a danger given that we still contribute to harmful chemicals in the atmosphere. Maybe it's not as bad as it was, which is great. Further reductions will be great too. I think it's a bit delusional to think "everything's great, we don't need to worry anymore" and that we can go on being as wasteful as possible. I think more SCIENTIFIC research should be done before we just up and say 'we're out of the danger now!'
Link Posted: 6/7/2002 9:11:54 AM EDT
Cow farts. It was in the news.
Link Posted: 6/7/2002 9:17:13 AM EDT
There is no hard scientific evidence that ANY warming is currently underway. PERIOD. Chicken Littles say, we can't wait to be sure, SOMETHING must be done. Bullshit. I like my Yukon, and more scientists believe NO global warming is occurring than the ones that claim it is happenning. MANY more, like 3 to 1. THose of us "educated" in the '70s and '80s vividly recall the "NEW ICE AGE" panic preached during those times. I guess that didn't fly, so the technology-haters are trying this.
Link Posted: 6/7/2002 9:18:35 AM EDT
I don't totall disregard the theory however, giveing the facts.............It is Total (with capitol T) BS. There is no proof of coorelation between greenhouse gases and global warming. The temperature delta data IS ABSOLUTLEY USELESS, IT IS USED AS A SCARE TACTIC. Consider the following: Every scientist accepts that the Earth's mean temperature varies over time. It has been known to vary at differenct levels from mild moderate to extreme. What kind of fool is going to draw a warming trend conclusion on the Earth's mean temp in a 50-year window of time compared against 600millions years of patchy data?
Link Posted: 6/7/2002 9:39:06 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/7/2002 9:43:06 AM EDT
Originally Posted By CITADELGRAD87: THose of us "educated" in the '70s and '80s vividly recall the "NEW ICE AGE" panic preached during those times. I guess that didn't fly, so the technology-haters are trying this.
View Quote
You should have made a bet. You would have won. I forget what his name was, but the same guy who was running around screaming that ice was going to accumulate at the poles until the planet flipped over is the one who is credited with starting the "global warming" nonsense. He sold a lot of books with the ice-age bullshit, and apparently wanted to do the same thing again.
Link Posted: 6/7/2002 10:01:41 AM EDT
Bad science by stupid people with liberal arts degrees... The arctic was once a rain forest. Most of the US was covered by a miles-think sheet of ice, in geological time, only milliseconds ago. The tree huggers have failed to notice that there is no such thing as a stable climate on this planet. Like our annual seasons, the planet has hyper-seasons and we've been in a warming portion of the cycle for the last 15 or 20,000 years. It was way colder, it will likely get way warmer whether man is on the planet or not. Tree huggers have also failed to consider solar influence on the climate and according to recent NASA report, solar output is up something like 15% over the last 2 decades. That amount of energy difference alone dwarfs every bit of energy ever expended at that hands of mankind. I just recently saw a chart of estimated global temperatures for something like the last several million years. The last 10,000 on it were the flattest portion of the graph. It's arguable that mankind has flourished ONLY because of an unusually mild climatic period.
Link Posted: 6/7/2002 10:05:44 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Waldo: Such bullshit. The place where I'm sitting has been covered by an ice sheet and an inland sea at least twice, as near as they can tell. All before man ever walked on the earth.
View Quote
IMHO, there are so many news agencies out there, liberal oriented, and clawing to be on top of the ratings. Because of current technology, we have access to around the world coverage of crap that doesn't affect us 24/7. It's all this reporting of MAJOR FLOODING and DROUGHT and FAMINE, that makes people watch and say: "Wow, they're right! The climate must be changing, just look at all the bad things happening around the world. It must be Global Warming." Hey, liberals: WAKE TF UP! There's something called a monsoon that happens every year in Asia and it's not a CNN-reportable incident. The Desert is always hot and dry, and the rainforest is always rainy. Flooding in the midwest is due to people building too close to the river, not due to SUV's. That's why I ohly get my news from AR-15.com! [stick]
Link Posted: 6/7/2002 10:12:08 AM EDT
I read somewhere recently that when Pinatubo (a volcano in the Phillipines) erupted in 1994 it released more CO2 than all the CO2 produced in the history of human industry. I do believe that there has been a slight rise in the average temperature of the Earth in the last couple of decades. If you look at ice core samples in the poles, it would appear that the Earth has actually slowed down it's warming cycle in the last few centuries. I don't believe it is anything drastic, nor do I believe that it is being caused by humans. Two decades or even two centuries of data similar to what they have isn't enough to claim that there is a threatening global catastrophe happening. It's politically motivated left wing pseudo-science at best.
Link Posted: 6/7/2002 10:16:24 AM EDT
hot air from windbags.
Link Posted: 6/7/2002 10:32:29 AM EDT
The total amount of “green house” gases released by humans is less than 5% of the total. 95%+ of “green house” gases are natural occurring and when you take in to account 1 volcanic eruption can release more “green house” gases than human release in several years it does not add up that global warming is caused by humans. This is about funding academic and government agencies have to project a crisis to drive funding. For example scream… the sky is falling “acid rain” is destroying the forest and lakes we need billions to study the problem. Now substitute “ozone depletion” or “global warming” for “acid rain” and I think you begin to see the pattern. Create a crisis get billions in government grants to study the problem when that gravy train is over create a new crisis and on and on. There may be global warming (which there is no real scientific evidence to support and no scientific consciences on contrary to what the media portrays), but I do not think humans effect global warming one way or another.
Link Posted: 6/7/2002 10:35:11 AM EDT
Oh, all right. Global warming is my fault. I couldn't help it, though. I had baked beans and coleslaw with dinner last night. [:D]
Link Posted: 6/7/2002 10:37:42 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/7/2002 10:38:55 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/7/2002 10:47:12 AM EDT
There is a study on global warming set to be released next month and is sponsored by Stanford, UC Berkeley, and Dianne Finestein. The study concludes that the burning of smokeless gunpowder in the US is a significant cause of global warming. It recommends that the EPA implements tighter controls such as the burning of smokeless gunpowder on odd/even days per each shooter's last number on their car license plate. Don Perata, CA state senator, in the interest of saving the planet has declared his bill for taxing ammo sales as pro-green and enviro-friendly. Developing...
Link Posted: 6/7/2002 10:54:05 AM EDT
My guess is that one of the most recent indications of global warming, the Larsen B ice shelf collapse, would have occurred regardless of human activity. Hasn't it been shown that at one time fruits and grapes grew in what is currently Iceland and Greenland? I think the warming and cooling of the earth is just a natural process that we hve little effect on or control over. That all being said, I think it is wise to reduce emmisions and pollution to the greatest extent practicably possible.
Link Posted: 6/7/2002 10:54:34 AM EDT
Global Warming is caused by farting Farm Animals! [img]http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/fart.gif[/img] Or it could be caused by faulty computer models.
Link Posted: 6/7/2002 11:03:22 AM EDT
OK let’s look at the farting animal argument. Remember we virtually wiped out the vast Buffalo herds that occupied North America, 10 of millions of very large farting animals. How come they did not cause global warming? The farting animal argument is a backdoor attack eating meat.
Link Posted: 6/7/2002 11:06:25 AM EDT
On ice ages and interglacial periods... Yup, climatologists were talking a lot about the fact that we are at the end of an interglacial period and that over the next several _THOUSAND_ years the planet will cool. This is a function of the eccentricity of the earth's orbit, the precession of the earth, the longitude of perihelion, and the asymmetric distribution of the land over the globe. If you have a hard time believing that, then you would have a hard time "believing" in Newtonian mechanics and that we have things in orbit around this planet. The important thing to remember here is that these changes occur over periods of thousands of years. You don't have to look at the climatological records to know that C02, CH4, N02, and CFC's are greenhouse gasses. That is simple spectroscopy of those gases as well as the other gases in the atmosphere. The atmospheric C02 increase can be attributed to fossil fuel burning because the atmospheric ratio of C14 (Carbon with two extra neutrons) and C13 (Carbon with one extra neutron) is to C12 is decreasing relative to known historical levels as well as data taken from trapped gases in ice cores. C14 is a radioisotope with a half-life of approx. 5,700 years, so fossil fuels have almost no C14 since it hasn't been exposed to the air (the source of C14) for millions of years. C13 is not absorbed by plants as easily as C12. Since C13 is heavier and therefore slower, it will not permeate a membrane (like a plant wall) as quickly as C12. Since plants are the main source of organic carbon for fossil fuels, fossil fuels are poor in C13. Since atmospheric C14/C12 and C13/C12 ratios are declining, we know that the extra carbon in the atmosphere is coming from fossil fuel burning and not something like atmosphere/ocean exchange rate changes. The changes due to our greenhouse gas emissions will force climate changes in much, much shorter time spans than orbital parameter theory suggest. The big question is not if, or when, it is how much. Doubling the C02 content in the atmosphere will increase surface temperatures by 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C. This requires no computer simulations, just math and some understanding of thermodynamics. The large variability is due to uncertainty about changes in surface albedo and distribution in cloud height.
Link Posted: 6/7/2002 11:32:37 AM EDT
The atmospheric C02 increase can be attributed to fossil fuel burning because the atmospheric ratio of C14 (Carbon with two extra neutrons) and C13 (Carbon with one extra neutron) is to C12 is decreasing relative to known historical levels as well as data taken from trapped gases in ice cores. C14 is a radioisotope with a half-life of approx. 5,700 years, so fossil fuels have almost no C14 since it hasn't been exposed to the air (the source of C14) for millions of years. C13 is not absorbed by plants as easily as C12. Since C13 is heavier and therefore slower, it will not permeate a membrane (like a plant wall) as quickly as C12. Since plants are the main source of organic carbon for fossil fuels, fossil fuels are poor in C13. Since atmospheric C14/C12 and C13/C12 ratios are declining, we know that the extra carbon in the atmosphere is coming from fossil fuel burning and not something like atmosphere/ocean exchange rate changes.
View Quote
uhhhhh.... are you saying you believe in global warming or not? [>:/]
Link Posted: 6/7/2002 11:37:19 AM EDT
Anyone ever hear "necessity is the mother of invention"? Even if all this Global Warming BS is real, when it becomes profitable to save the Earth, we will. Who would have ever guessed 20 years ago that people would be spending Billions of $$ on bottled water? [?]
Link Posted: 6/7/2002 11:51:02 AM EDT
Global warming is the least of my worries. My big worry is when will the Earth's magnetic poles flip from north to south! Think of the confusion! Who won the war between the states? My Wally-Mart compass will be useless and all those years of aviation training will go down the drain since I'll have to interpolate (I've always loved that word) all this new and confusing data. I can hear it now. Indy Center: "niner seven tango steer 179 and report at 8. Me: ahhh...Indy Center is that 179 old south or 179 new north? Indy Center: ahhh...hold niner seven tango, I think it's 359, no 179....er...wait....just steer for the tall blinking antenna..... Tin Foil hat firmly in place...lol.
Link Posted: 6/7/2002 11:57:45 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Ramjet: Tin Foil hat firmly in place...lol.
View Quote
[x] Speaking of tin foil hats, did you notice that GW Bush has the same initials as Global Warming? George Walker=Global Warming THINK ABOUT IT!!!!!!!!! [:D]
Link Posted: 6/7/2002 12:01:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/7/2002 12:33:25 PM EDT by Max_Mike]
kruger posts: "The changes due to our greenhouse gas emissions will force climate changes in much, much shorter time spans than orbital parameter theory suggest." I think that blast of hot air might contribute more to global warming than most humans emissions.:) What you posted ignores that humans are a very very minor producer of green house gases. All the fossil fuels burned by humans in one year can be dwarfed by random events in nature such as 1 volcanic eruption. Furthermore climatologists do not agree there is global warming. The last survey of climatologists taken showed 60% believe global warming is occurring, 40% do not believe global warming is occurring. 60% of those that did believe global warming was occurring did not think humans were a factor. So a large percentage (76%) of climatologists think humans have no effect on global warming. Now we know that thousands of “concerned scientist” have signed petitions that support the theory of global warming, the problem is these “concerned scientist” are not climatologists just mostly left leaning academics. Anyway climatologists cannot predict the weather 3 days out much less 100 years. Add to that the computer models used to project global warming in the future when reversed backward in time cannot reproduce the conditions that existed. These models show the world to be much colder than it actually was in the past. The computer models are faulty and cannot be relied on. Add to that the we know from the geological record the last 400 years have been colder that the average past 5000 and the geological record shows periods of natural warming and cooling over the last 5000 years if there is global warming there is no reason to assume it is not natural. What you post is based on emotion not reason or science.
Link Posted: 6/7/2002 2:02:16 PM EDT
Global warming is caused by breathing leftists lib
Link Posted: 6/7/2002 3:40:54 PM EDT
Termites? No kidding... I wonder if we could bottle their farts and use it as stink bombs. That would be tooooo cool.
Link Posted: 6/7/2002 3:43:09 PM EDT
gobal warming is ocurring. My hypothesis is that it is due to geothermal activity in the Pacific Basin. There are, of course, a considerable number of variables but I am not at all convinced that this is due to "greenhouse gases". The Eco-whacko's have clearly got an axe to grind over this issue, as well as others, and they have lost all credibility IMO. The science they are basing these extrapolations on are greatly flawed. FWIW, our planet has compensatory mechanisms to deal with increased CO2. Unfortunately, our destruction of rainforest, etc is one of these and that destruction is a greater threat than CO2. Combustion engines burn to expel CO2 and water if combustion is complete--the goal of combustion as it is more efficient and cleaner. Incomplete combustion leads to production of CO (or carbon monoxide) and is not much of a problem in car engines. CO2 has little to do with smog. NO and NO2 do. Other hydrocarbons and sulfur gases, etc are also released, especially if combustion is incomplete. Your catalytic convertor is there to deal with incompletely burned gases.
Link Posted: 6/7/2002 4:31:07 PM EDT
Originally Posted By lurker: hot air from windbags.
View Quote
Especially from bonehead-in-chief AL GORE.
Link Posted: 6/7/2002 4:43:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/7/2002 4:45:37 PM EDT by kruger]
Originally Posted By Max_Mike: kruger posts: "The changes due to our greenhouse gas emissions will force climate changes in much, much shorter time spans than orbital parameter theory suggest." I think that blast of hot air might contribute more to global warming than most humans emissions.:)
View Quote
What rates that statement as hot air? Earth's orbital eccentricity varies and the dominant periodicities are 100,000 and 400,000 years. Obliquity has a dominant periodicity of 40,000 years. The longitude of perihelion has a cycle time of 20,000 years. Atmospheric response time to a new C02 concentration is on the order of 50-200 years to achieve equilibrium. I think that 200 years is a much much shorter time period than 20,000 years.
What you posted ignores that humans are a very very minor producer of green house gases. All the fossil fuels burned by humans in one year can be dwarfed by random events in nature such as 1 volcanic eruption.
View Quote
People put about 6 Gigatons of Carbon into the atmosphere a year currently. Pinatubo (1991) put 30 Megatons of aerosols into the air. St. Helens (1980) put .3 Megatons into the atmosphere. Krakatau (1880-something) put something like 50 Megatons into the atmosphere (there is a large error in this figure). Note that the aerosols include things like S02, which cools the surface since it acts as a could condensation nuclei, and C02 is only part of the aerosols released. Now take a look at the orders of magnitude and the frequency of eruptions... However, human effects are small compared to things like the air/sea carbon exchange, which runs to something like 90 Gigatons a year. However, if the increase in C02 levels since the 1700's were due to a change in air/sea carbon exchange, we wouldn't see the 2% change in the C14/C12 ratio that we do see.
Link Posted: 6/7/2002 4:46:31 PM EDT
Furthermore climatologists do not agree there is global warming. The last survey of climatologists taken showed 60% believe global warming is occurring, 40% do not believe global warming is occurring. 60% of those that did believe global warming was occurring did not think humans were a factor. So a large percentage (76%) of climatologists think humans have no effect on global warming. Now we know that thousands of “concerned scientist” have signed petitions that support the theory of global warming, the problem is these “concerned scientist” are not climatologists just mostly left leaning academics. Anyway climatologists cannot predict the weather 3 days out much less 100 years.
View Quote
Surveys of police chiefs indicate that LEO's don't want the ordinary citizen armed, and a survey taken at the swimming pool indicates that 99% of the population enjoys swimming. Unless you have very detailed knowledge of the population surveyed and the questions asked, drawing conclusions from surveys is worthless. Anyway, I put little faith in surveys. To misquote Dr. McCoy: "Dammit Jim, I'm a physicist, not a sociologist!" :)
Add to that the computer models used to project global warming in the future when reversed backward in time cannot reproduce the conditions that existed. These models show the world to be much colder than it actually was in the past. The computer models are faulty and cannot be relied on.
View Quote
I'm got a mesoscale atmospheric model at work. Models are sensitive to initial conditions and accurate simulation of the atmospheric microphysics. However, the information you have is a bit on the old side... Current climate models (which are different from weather models in sample size and integration time step) do regress well. The biggest hurdles that remain are increasing sample size and rate which can be solved with more computing power and integrating oceanic models. In any case, the two arguments against the "models can't predict tomorrow's weather" argument are: 1) The fact that increased atmospheric C02 leads to higher surface temperatures has nothing to do with computer models. Thermodynamics and the absorbtion and radiative characteristics of the molecules in question are all that's needed. 2) Models have a hard time giving you tomorrows exact weather. We are not interested in tomorrow's exact weather, nor are we interested in the weather some some fine spring day 18,000 years ago. We are interested in averages, and models do that fairly well.
Add to that the we know from the geological record the last 400 years have been colder that the average past 5000 and the geological record shows periods of natural warming and cooling over the last 5000 years if there is global warming there is no reason to assume it is not natural.
View Quote
I'd love to continue, but I've got a black rifle league to run tonight, and I have to get started on the setup. Sorry.
What you post is based on emotion not reason or science.
View Quote
I don't see how orbital mechanics, spectroscopy, the behaviour of the C14 radioisotope, and the permiability difference of different weight atoms that I talked about in my original post are based on emotion. Could you please explain?
Link Posted: 6/7/2002 5:04:44 PM EDT
Police Chiefs are politicians 1st police 2nd and have noting to do with this argument, again emotion not logic. Climatologists are scientist who are pertinent to climate change and your circuitous logic makes my point, emotion is not proof. For computers model to be used to predict the future with any accuracy the must be able to reproduce the approximate past. And the computers model are being used to support the global warming theory, as a matter of fact computers models are the main pillars of the whole theory. And it is not true the “current climate models” that support the global warming theory “regress well” they do not. The global warming theory is a house of cards that will collapse because of its own inconsistencies.
Link Posted: 6/7/2002 5:11:51 PM EDT
I saw a documentary on Discovery about this solid methane that they've found at the bottom of the ocean. When they bring it to the surface, it sublimates and will burn. They said that sometimes an underwater earthquake or landslide will loosen this stuff and it will vaporize, creating gigantic bubbles. They even showed a video of a bubble eruption, and it was HUGE. THey said that this could be the cause of the mysterious boat sinkings in the Bermuda Triangle. If a gigantic bubble is underneath a boat, that boat will fall like a rock. THey also said that the methane could also destroy aircraft engines, which could explain why planes dissappear. Anyway, if anything's causing global warming, that would. Methane is a much worse greenhouse gas than CO2. Not that I believe in global warming. I also believe in natural climate fluctuations. And how would scients know ANYTHING about present climate changing trends in only 50-100 years of studying it?
Link Posted: 6/7/2002 6:53:09 PM EDT
To quote an artical I saw today: "Climate varies naturally; just consider the now-frozen Greenland farmed by Vikings 1,000 years ago. If we could choose between a warmer or cooler global climate, we'd choose warmer because it's more conducive to life; consider those who starved in famines during Europe's Little Ice Age, circa 1450-1850. Global warming is a silly controversy that should have faded long ago. But gullible youth, a corrupt bureaucracy and biased media may keep it alive for years to come." http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,54676,00.html
Link Posted: 6/7/2002 7:32:47 PM EDT
Top Top