Global warming???

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by randolph

The actual raw field data supports anthropogenic warming, regardless of all the huffing and puffing rhetoric.

And the scientists that derived their positions from this raw data admitted that they had actually lost it and that their findings were somewhat fudged.

Just saying...




Correlation does not equal causation.

[The Conquistador]

Human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not harmfully warmed the Earth, and the extrapolation of current trends shows that it will not do so in the foreseeable future. The CO2 produced does, however, accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permits plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also flourishes, and the diversity of plant and animal life is increased.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

[Tread]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

What is a harmful warming?
Global climate is a big slow reacting system. The graphics in your Link show the massive increased use of fossil fuels. Such a fast and massive change of atmosphere CO2 has never happened before.
So what makes you belief someone can predict that it don't warm climate, but at the same time say we don't know much enough to say man has a significant effect on climate?

A lot of this is based on the US and not global. What uses a accelerated growth of plants, when at the same time the space that is available for plants is shrinking?

It's a stupid assumption that more CO2 will increases the diversity of plant and animal life. Man destroy the diversity faster than nature could regenerate (not to speak of increasing) it.

[Jenae LaTorque]

I am in the fossil fuel business and I really believe that we had better get our shit together because we are running out of easily exploitable resources here on this planet. Some years ago, some caps with the logo:

Earth First We'll drill the other planets later

were popular in the oilfield. Funny, yes, in a way. But also true. The other planets and the rest of space are going to be our next sources of hydro-carbons. Meanwhile, we had best get with the space program while we still have the resources to get out there. Mankind has a long history of being wasteful and short-sighted and I really don't see that changing much for the better in the near future. I applaud the efforts of the conservation-minded folks out there; but are very many people listening? And how many really give a damn? Where is the motivation to take care of what we have now? What is going to motivate our ruling bodies to make wise rulings when the fact is that money talks loudest of all?

Is global warming a fact? Seems to be a lot of doubt in the media right now. There is no doubt that historically the temperature goes up and down. I think it is good that we are looking at the potential problem, but I don't really believe that we have any solid answers yet, much less, a clear course of action. Something that I think is a much more pressing concern now is WATER. Clean water that is usable. ???????????

[randolph]

Originally Posted by Jenae LaTorque

I am in the fossil fuel business and I really believe that we had better get our shit together because we are running out of easily exploitable resources here on this planet. Some years ago, some caps with the logo:

Earth First We'll drill the other planets later

were popular in the oilfield. Funny, yes, in a way. But also true. The other planets and the rest of space are going to be our next sources of hydro-carbons. Meanwhile, we had best get with the space program while we still have the resources to get out there. Mankind has a long history of being wasteful and short-sighted and I really don't see that changing much for the better in the near future. I applaud the efforts of the conservation-minded folks out there; but are very many people listening? And how many really give a damn? Where is the motivation to take care of what we have now? What is going to motivate our ruling bodies to make wise rulings when the fact is that money talks loudest of all?

Is global warming a fact? Seems to be a lot of doubt in the media right now. There is no doubt that historically the temperature goes up and down. I think it is good that we are looking at the potential problem, but I don't really believe that we have any solid answers yet, much less, a clear course of action. Something that I think is a much more pressing concern now is WATER. Clean water that is usable. ???????????

An excellent post!
According to the "experts" peak oil was many years ago. We are using oil faster than we can find it. We are finding ways to get gas out of rock layers that was unavailable in the past, this will help for a while. Coal is our most abundant fuel resource and we will have to use it if we want to keep our current wasteful ways (more co2).
We have a stochastic climate system. With our limited knowledge of how climate works we can only guess what will happen in the future. I am very concerned that politics will impose "regulations" that will do no good and likely cause harm. Defining co2 as a pollutant for example. Co2 is the basis for life on this planet Plants cant live without it.

We can do many things to reduce energy use without expensive draconian government regulations.
For example:
Insulate houses and buildings.
In warm climates, paint roof white.
Stop eating beef (50% of greenhouse gases).
Hybrid and diesel cars.
Keep car in garage (walk, bike).
55 MPH limit.
Shop when returning from work.
Stay home and watch porn.
And so on.

The politicians don't want to encourage simple solutions, they want to enhance their power over society and the public does not want to change their energy consuming habits.

Water? Yes indeed, soon there will be violence and even wars over water as populations continue to increase, especially in India where glaciers are melting in the Himalayas (global warming), which are the source of much of India's water.

One thing for sure, the future will be full of news, most of it bad.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by randolph

Stop eating beef (50% of greenhouse gases).

I doubt that cows are more of a polluter than cars. Besides, we all fart methane(cows, humans, cats, dogs etc.) and I guarantee you that a burrito from your local taco joint will have you putting the Hindenberg to shame in the department of volatile gases.

Originally Posted by randolph

Water? Yes indeed, soon there will be violence and even wars over water as populations continue to increase, especially in India where glaciers are melting in the Himalayas (global warming), which are the source of much of India's water.

Will the future be like Tank Girl? Will a blonde, half shaven Lori Petty be driving around in a souped up Sherman?

I think the Indians could benefit alot more by purifying the water from the Ganges instead of floating turds and dead bodies down it. I'm all for tradition, but shitting in your own messkit seems a tad counterproductive...

[Jenae LaTorque]

Originally Posted by randolph

Stop eating beef (50% of greenhouse gases).

Aw, come on now! 50%?? Where did you pull that from? Even if you add up the methane emissions from their rear ends, the methane emissions from ours after heating a burger, the exhaust from the ranchers truck, the shipping truck, the packing fatory exhausts, the delivery truck, etc, and the hot air from the auctioneer at the sale ring.....you are still several magnitudes off from 50%. Seems like I heard that your friends and ours, the termites, produce more methane than cattle.
Give up our burgers?!? No way!!

[randolph]

Originally Posted by Jenae LaTorque

Aw, come on now! 50%?? Where did you pull that from? Even if you add up the methane emissions from their rear ends, the methane emissions from ours after heating a burger, the exhaust from the ranchers truck, the shipping truck, the packing fatory exhausts, the delivery truck, etc, and the hot air from the auctioneer at the sale ring.....you are still several magnitudes off from 50%. Seems like I heard that your friends and ours, the termites, produce more methane than cattle.
Give up our burgers?!? No way!!

This is from Earth Save.org.

Methane and Vegetarianism
By far the most important non-CO2 greenhouse gas is methane, and the number one source of methane worldwide is animal agriculture.

Methane is responsible for nearly as much global warming as all other non-CO2 greenhouse gases put together. Methane is 21 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2. While atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have risen by about 31% since pre-industrial times, methane concentrations have more than doubled. Whereas human sources of CO2 amount to just 3% of natural emissions, human sources produce one and a half times as much methane as all natural sources. In fact, the effect of our methane emissions may be compounded as methane-induced warming in turn stimulates microbial decay of organic matter in wetlands-the primary natural source of methane.

With methane emissions causing nearly half of the planet's human-induced warming, methane reduction must be a priority. Methane is produced by a number of sources, including coal mining and landfills-but the number one source worldwide is animal agriculture. Animal agriculture produces more than 100 million tons of methane a year. And this source is on the rise: global meat consumption has increased fivefold in the past fifty years, and shows little sign of abating. About 85% of this methane is produced in the digestive processes of livestock, and while a single cow releases a relatively small amount of methane, the collective effect on the environment of the hundreds of millions of livestock animals worldwide is enormous. An additional 15% of animal agricultural methane emissions are released from the massive "lagoons" used to store untreated farm animal waste, and already a target of environmentalists' for their role as the number one source of water pollution in the U.S.

The conclusion is simple: arguably the best way to reduce global warming in our lifetimes is to reduce or eliminate our consumption of animal products. Simply by going vegetarian (or, strictly speaking, vegan), , , we can eliminate one of the major sources of emissions of methane, the greenhouse gas responsible for almost half of the global warming impacting the planet today.

Well, we are not ready to go vegan or even to eliminate all meat, but we have pretty much eliminated beef particularly hamburger. Hamburger is nasty stuff anyway, often contaminated with salmonella.

[The Conquistador]

Randolph. I'm pretty sure that you seen the cracking towers at an oil refinery right? The flames that jutt up from the tops of the towers are burning off methane as there is just way too much of it to be captured and be effectively stored. They are burning 24/7, 365 days a year and it is logical that they empty more methane into the air than cow doodie.

Natural gas(Methane) is being used as fuel to power vehicles, heat homes and is considered to be alot more environmentally "friendly" than gasoline.

If anything, eating more beef would result in less cattle. Just like if you leave an animal population alone, it explodes. Therefore, harvesting more of them will result in a decrease of the animal population.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

Randolph. I'm pretty sure that you seen the cracking towers at an oil refinery right? The flames that jutt up from the tops of the towers are burning off methane as there is just way too much of it to be captured and be effectively stored. They are burning 24/7, 365 days a year and it is logical that they empty more methane into the air than cow doodie.

Natural gas(Methane) is being used as fuel to power vehicles, heat homes and is considered to be alot more environmentally "friendly" than gasoline.

If anything, eating more beef would result in less cattle. Just like if you leave an animal population alone, it explodes. Therefore, harvesting more of them will result in a decrease of the animal population.

I love your amazing logic! Your joking of course.

[The Conquistador]

No I was not joking.

The whole cow poo affecting the climate thing is preposterous. It is just a ploy by vegans to make others feel guilty for eating beef by claiming that the beef that they eat somehow contributes to GW.

[randolph]

Here are a few of the websites pointing out the contribution of agricultural methane to global warming.

[Tread]

Originally Posted by randolph

Stop eating beef (50% of greenhouse gases).

It has an effect, but even the entire, no matter it comes from, methane in the atmosphere can't be 50%.
CO2: 385 ppm; least 120 years
Methane: 1,75 ppm; least 9-15 years (I found it has a 25 times bigger effect than co2.)

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

If anything, eating more beef would result in less cattle. Just like if you leave an animal population alone, it explodes. Therefore, harvesting more of them will result in a decrease of the animal population.

This had to be a joke.



But if cattle don't eat the grass, something other will do. And in the end it's bacteria that decompose it, no matter if they live in earth, in cattle, in termites, or what else. That's part of the natural circles.
More problems occur in perma frost soil and methane hydrate stores that release methane every bit it gets warmer. And indirectly by over fishing, that end up in more released methane on the sea ground.

The problems occur when we don't act in circles like the entire nature. We are releasing gases that don't belong in the present circles and producing waste that can't be decomposed by nature or even harm nature. And we are violating the ecological balance. So the environment/climate will change, and not to our benefit.

[randolph]

What I meant was that the effect of methane in the atmosphere is near 50% of the warming contributed by greenhouse gases not the amount of methane in the atmosphere.

From The Telegraph UK.
"Methane is mostly emitted by agriculture, most famously from cows burping Photo: PAUL WINTER/GETTY IMAGES

Already, scientists consider methane as the second most damaging greenhouse gas produced by human activity after carbon dioxide. It is mostly emitted by agriculture, most famously from cows burping but also from ploughing soil and allowing vegetable matter to rot. Landfill is also a major cause of methane and the burning of coal and natural gas.

Before it was thought every tonne of methane was around 25 times more damaging to the atmosphere than every tonne of carbon dioxide.

Related Articles

*
EU summit: climate change and presidency top agenda
*
Britain will not sign up to a weak deal at Copenhagen
*
Putting biomass into the equation
*
Obesity threat to individuals and planet
*
Amazon rainforest at risk of ecological 'catastrophe'
*
Barack Obama 'must act now' to tackle climate change

However a new study by the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies has found methane is 33 times more damaging if the effects of interaction with other airborne pollutants is included.

The report, published in Science, found that the warming effects of methane are increased through its interaction with aerosols like sulphate molecules.

The finding has implications for any climate change deal decided by the UN in Copenhagen in December.

At the moment targets are focused on cutting carbon dioxide but scientists are now arguing for more emphasis on cutting other greenhouse gases as well -especially because methane breaks down more quickly in the atmosphere so cuts will have a more immediate effect.

Dr Chris Huntingford, of the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, said the study could influence climate change negotiations."

"This is an excellent analysis demonstrating that methane emissions have the potential to add more future warming than hereto realised. This new research complements the well-established result that carbon dioxide emissions have been responsible for a large fraction of the global warming observed since pre-industrial times," he said.

"There is a requirement to distil this more complete understanding of how the many different atmospheric gases interact, both between themselves and with humans. Policy decisions must account for such interactions and links to emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and atmospheric aerosols."

[Tread]

What I wanted to say is that there is 225 times more co2 in the atmosphere than methane. Methane has 25 times greenhouse effect of co2. Methane can't reach the co2 effect and if methane would causes 50% we had far over 100%.

But it is a significant factor in the atmosphere beside steam, co2, n2o (laughing gas), Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) and aerosols.

[randolph]

This quote might give a better idea of the contribution of various gases to warming. As shown, the contributions of methane relative to co2 is highly variable. 50% methane contribution is to high based on this data, ranging from 34% to 44% compared to co2

From Wikipedia.
"The contribution to the greenhouse effect by a gas is affected by both the characteristics of the gas and its abundance. For example, on a molecule-for-molecule basis methane is about eight times stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide[6], but it is present in much smaller concentrations so that its total contribution is smaller. When these gases are ranked by their contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are:[7]

* water vapor, which contributes 36-72%
* carbon dioxide, which contributes 9-26%
* methane, which contributes 4-9%
* ozone, which contributes 3-7%

It is not possible to state that a certain gas causes an exact percentage of the greenhouse effect. This is because some of the gases absorb and emit radiation at the same frequencies as others, so that the total greenhouse effect is not simply the sum of the influence of each gas. The higher ends of the ranges quoted are for each gas alone; the lower ends account for overlaps with the other gases.[8][7] The major non-gas contributor to the Earth's greenhouse effect, clouds, also absorb and emit infrared radiation and thus have an effect on radiative properties of the greenhouse gases."

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by randolph

Here are a few of the websites pointing out the contribution of agricultural methane to global warming.

Those websites are pandering to the GW theory, not legitimate scientific sources.

[randolph]

OK you want to get technical?

"Ann. Zootech. 49 (2000) 231-253

Methane production by ruminants: its contribution to global warming

Angela R. Mossa - Jean-Pierre Jouanyb - John Newboldc

aADAS Nutritional Sciences Research Unit, Alcester Road, Stratford Upon Avon, Warwickshire CV37 9RQ, UK
bINRA, Centre de Recherches de Clermont-Ferrand-Theix, 63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France
cRowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen, AB21 9SB, UK

(Received 15 November 1999; accepted 5 April 2000)

Abstract:
The aim of this paper is to review the role of methane in the global warming scenario and to examine the contribution to atmospheric methane made by enteric fermentation, mainly by ruminants. Agricultural emissions of methane in the EU-15 have recently been estimated at 10.2 million tonnes per year and represent the greatest source. Of these, approximately two-thirds come from enteric fermentation and one-third from livestock manure. Fermentation of feeds in the rumen is the largest source of methane from enteric fermentation and this paper considers in detail the reasons for, and the consequences of, the fact that the molar percentage of the different volatile fatty acids produced during fermentation influences the production of methane in the rumen. Acetate and butyrate promote methane production while propionate formation can be considered as a competitive pathway for hydrogen use in the rumen. The many alternative approaches to reducing methane are considered, both in terms of reduction per animal and reduction per unit of animal product. It was concluded that the most promising areas for future research for reducing methanogenesis are the development of new products/delivery systems for anti-methanogenic compounds or alternative electron acceptors in the rumen and reduction in protozoal numbers in the rumen. It is also stressed that the reason ruminants are so important to mankind is that much of the world's biomass is rich in fibre. They can convert this into high quality protein sources (i.e. meat and milk) for human consumption and this will need to be balanced against the concomitant production of methane.


Keywords: methane / ruminants / global warning / reduction strategies "

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by randolph

This quote might give a better idea of the contribution of various gases to warming. As shown, the contributions of methane relative to co2 is highly variable. 50% methane contribution is to high based on this data, ranging from 34% to 44% compared to co2

From Wikipedia.
"The contribution to the greenhouse effect by a gas is affected by both the characteristics of the gas and its abundance. For example, on a molecule-for-molecule basis methane is about eight times stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide[6], but it is present in much smaller concentrations so that its total contribution is smaller. When these gases are ranked by their contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are:[7]

* water vapor, which contributes 36-72%
* carbon dioxide, which contributes 9-26%
* methane, which contributes 4-9%
* ozone, which contributes 3-7%

It is not possible to state that a certain gas causes an exact percentage of the greenhouse effect. This is because some of the gases absorb and emit radiation at the same frequencies as others, so that the total greenhouse effect is not simply the sum of the influence of each gas. The higher ends of the ranges quoted are for each gas alone; the lower ends account for overlaps with the other gases.[8][7] The major non-gas contributor to the Earth's greenhouse effect, clouds, also absorb and emit infrared radiation and thus have an effect on radiative properties of the greenhouse gases."

Methane is a non-issue for GW.


Tread, firearm suppressor regulations were originally started in the 1920's. Why? Because when the Great Depression hit America and it was too costly to buy food, people started to hunt deer. Overharvesting put deer populations in the red because people would hunt them after the season ended and they would use suppressors on their rifles so as not to attract the attention of the game warden.

If you kill an animal before it can procreate, you will start lowering its overall population. If methane coming from a cow's ass is a problem, kill the cows.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by randolph

OK you want to get technical?

"Ann. Zootech. 49 (2000) 231-253

Methane production by ruminants: its contribution to global warming

Angela R. Mossa - Jean-Pierre Jouanyb - John Newboldc

aADAS Nutritional Sciences Research Unit, Alcester Road, Stratford Upon Avon, Warwickshire CV37 9RQ, UK
bINRA, Centre de Recherches de Clermont-Ferrand-Theix, 63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France
cRowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen, AB21 9SB, UK

(Received 15 November 1999; accepted 5 April 2000)

Abstract:
The aim of this paper is to review the role of methane in the global warming scenario and to examine the contribution to atmospheric methane made by enteric fermentation, mainly by ruminants. Agricultural emissions of methane in the EU-15 have recently been estimated at 10.2 million tonnes per year and represent the greatest source. Of these, approximately two-thirds come from enteric fermentation and one-third from livestock manure. Fermentation of feeds in the rumen is the largest source of methane from enteric fermentation and this paper considers in detail the reasons for, and the consequences of, the fact that the molar percentage of the different volatile fatty acids produced during fermentation influences the production of methane in the rumen. Acetate and butyrate promote methane production while propionate formation can be considered as a competitive pathway for hydrogen use in the rumen. The many alternative approaches to reducing methane are considered, both in terms of reduction per animal and reduction per unit of animal product. It was concluded that the most promising areas for future research for reducing methanogenesis are the development of new products/delivery systems for anti-methanogenic compounds or alternative electron acceptors in the rumen and reduction in protozoal numbers in the rumen. It is also stressed that the reason ruminants are so important to mankind is that much of the world's biomass is rich in fibre. They can convert this into high quality protein sources (i.e. meat and milk) for human consumption and this will need to be balanced against the concomitant production of methane.


Keywords: methane / ruminants / global warning / reduction strategies "

Haha! The thought that cows produce more methane than an oil refinery is laughable. Decomposition of organic materials(bodies, vegetation etc.) produces more methane for the simple fact that necrosis covers the whole earth compared to the small area of a cows insides where enteric fermentation takes place!

[Jenae LaTorque]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

Haha! The thought that cows produce more methane than an oil refinery is laughable. Decomposition of organic materials(bodies, vegetation etc.) produces more methane for the simple fact that necrosis covers the whole earth compared to the small area of a cows insides where enteric fermentation takes place!

Consider that there are only 150 operating oil refineries in the US and there are on average over 100 million cattle in the US. So we have some 670, 000 cows for every refinery. Now let's look at other countries. India has over 250 million cows and less than 30 refineries. Worldwide we are looking at about 1.2 billion moo cows. Now to be honest, there are other places besides refineries that have flare stacks, such as; treatment plants, pumping stations, production centers, etc. The important point is that the gas is mostly being burned there and most of what is released to the atmosphere is not methane but rather CO2 and water vapor. Both, of course, are greenhouse gases and thus contribute to global warming.

Have we all lost sight of the fact that the same gases and the global warming effect they produce is what keeps this planet livable for us. If we didn't have them, it would be a damn cold place on this old dirt ball.

[Hourglass]

I always say the same thing to anyone who believes in global warming:
Go spent a winter in Minnesota. Then come back and tell us how that whole Greenhouse Effect is working for ya.

[Tread]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

Tread, firearm suppressor regulations were originally started in the 1920's. Why? Because when the Great Depression hit America and it was too costly to buy food, people started to hunt deer. Overharvesting put deer populations in the red because people would hunt them after the season ended and they would use suppressors on their rifles so as not to attract the attention of the game warden.

If you kill an animal before it can procreate, you will start lowering its overall population. If methane coming from a cow's ass is a problem, kill the cows.

The most cattle are domestic cattle. They are not wild animals and are breaded for meat and milk. They are produced on demand. They are not allowed to procreate their self. This over breaded cattle have not the best changes against food competitors and predators (as long as they live anymore near them).
As long someone pays for cows, they will "produce" cows.

Originally Posted by Jenae LaTorque

Have we all lost sight of the fact that the same gases and the global warming effect they produce is what keeps this planet livable for us. If we didn't have them, it would be a damn cold place on this old dirt ball.

No, too much and too less is not good for us. Nature has created a balance in witch we developed, and we don't care about this balance, changing it and could harm ourselves.

[randolph]

Hey Jenae and Tread, do you think it is worth our time to continue to try to get through to these no boys?
I think its time to go back to dreaming about cute trannys.

[The Conquistador]

I'm just trying to get the point across that the whole cattle contributor of methane in the atmosphere is more of just a ploy to get people to stop eating beef than it is to actually do anything of any worth to the environment.

[Tread]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

I'm just trying to get the point across that the whole cattle contributor of methane in the atmosphere is more of just a ploy to get people to stop eating beef than it is to actually do anything of any worth to the environment.

Personally I'm not for a vegetarian diet (maybe you can remember our early posts in another thread), but there is more behind this that is worth for the environment.
Beef and milk products are not very effective as nutrient supply. A lot of space must be used to get enough food for the huge amounts of cattle. In many countries they use also artificial fertilizer to get better grows and fight at the same time some other herbs and trees to get only cattle food.
Fertilizer is responsible for 1/3 of N2O worldwide.
A natural grassland bind more greenhouse gases than a full deplete agriculturally use.
And the immense water use, it sounds unbelievable, but it's true. 1kg (2.205 pound) beef needs 15000l (3958.5 gallons) water and 1000l water for 1l milk.

Humans don't need much meat, and herbal food would usually be more effective (as long they don't farm water hungry fruits in deserts as some do).




randolph: I don't want to get through and build their opinion, I want to animate to think self, and asking their self questions if it works like they think. (Maybe not successfully)

[Mel Asher]

Originally Posted by Tread

Yes, nobody knows how the complete global climate system works, but all data and calculations show we have an effect, the question is how big it is.
Only because there are a few black sheep under scientists does not mean all climate data that is recorded is invented. The global climate models, with data from the past, get very close to the climate at that time. The problems with the future data is how we behave further, the atmosphere and what randolph posted. From the industrial revolution to now the CO2 has risen exponential and is twice as it was before. Such a high vale is million years ago, and it was warmer then, even the sun had a lower sun radiation.



I would say the list of financial interests against global warming is even higher. Short-sighted everyone would have to pay for climate friendly behaviour, that is connected with costs for everyone, but most for the industry, and for politicians with bad financial statements in their time of power.
On a longer sighted it saves money and we have to change our behaviour anyway, so why not now?



The significant factor is not because we are here, it is more how we treat our environment and our recourses.

To stay in your Gaia dimensions, bacteria could not be more than an irritation to a human. They could never harm us seriously, nor do we need them for, i.e. digestion!? They are just too small.



I'm against controlling nature, but that doesn't exclude a responsible treatment to nature.



The last time? Every live form with a working metabolism does it, some more some less. We use fossil fuels and acting a lot faster than any organism on earth before.
Very important ones are algae, trees and plants. Without them the atmosphere would change drastic and it would get warmer.



Everyone thinks a nuclear war can affect the world, but many think everything else we do are puny activities.
Mankind has 23300 nuclear bombs. The smallest is 0,3kT and the biggest was 60MT. I didn't looked up much so calculated with 30MT in the middle (must be way over a realistic value).
If all bombs (30MT in middle) are detonating the energy would be 2796*10^18J (2796EJ (Exa Joule)).
The word energy use is nearly 500EJ per year and still fast rising.
Over 70% of it is produced with fossil recourses.
The energy of a nuclear war is deadly but the world energy use has no effect on it?

We may not the biggest promoter of global climate (I think I heard guesses around 15-20%), but even a small amount could have bad effects for us.



Why keeping the planet tidy, if Gaia does the right things for us?

Thanks for the dissection and commentary, Tread.
One simple question which very few Western Politicians will face up to and give a straight answer ( without tacking on their own particular slant, that is )
Jenae has fingered it : Isn't it true that Western Politicians are shit scared to admit that the West ( in particular ) has overused fossil fuel resources to such an extent that they are in very real danger of being held to extortionate fuel prices by the OPEC cartel and other contollers of pertroleum products less than friendly to the West ? And that so as not to trigger this extortion, Global Warming is being trumpeted as the one thing to fear, taking the heat ( no pun intended ) off themselves as having promoted for years the abuse of finite resources. You see if they made an all out drive to develop non-carbon bases sources of electricity ( the widespread Nuclear power issue still being very contentious after Chernobyl ), then other Global producers of Oil would be quick to try to discourage such initiatives, as their source of Livelihood would be severly dented as a result. How would they do it ? Why, by putting up the price of oil ! Would the West have the political will to prevent this ? I think not.

I think the West has shot itself in the foot through sheer greed and rampant consumerism, and it will be made to pay the price.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by Mel Asher

Thanks for the dissection and commentary, Tread.
One simple question which very few Western Politicians will face up to and give a straight answer ( without tacking on their own particular slant, that is )
Jenae has fingered it : Isn't it true that Western Politicians are shit scared to admit that the West ( in particular ) has overused fossil fuel resources to such an extent that they are in very real danger of being held to extortionate fuel prices by the OPEC cartel and other contollers of pertroleum products less than friendly to the West ? And that so as not to trigger this extortion, Global Warming is being trumpeted as the one thing to fear, taking the heat ( no pun intended ) off themselves as having promoted for years the abuse of finite resources. You see if they made an all out drive to develop non-carbon bases sources of electricity ( the widespread Nuclear power issue still being very contentious after Chernobyl ), then other Global producers of Oil would be quick to try to discourage such initiatives, as their source of Livelihood would be severly dented as a result. How would they do it ? Why, by putting up the price of oil ! Would the West have the political will to prevent this ? I think not.

I think the West has shot itself in the foot through sheer greed and rampant consumerism, and it will be made to pay the price.

Quite true. However, as I drive around the freeways of S. California the possibility of an alternative to fossil fuels seems remote indeed. Our entire infrastructure is based on consuming fossil fuels. It seems impossible to maintain this level of activity with any other alternative. Ultimately, we will be forced into a very different lifestyle.
It all boils down to world population. If the world population was a tenth of what it now is, oil would last for centuries and the natural environment would survive. We are literally eating and consuming ourselves out of house and home.
So, what politician is going to advocate and what government is going to enforce what china has done, limit children to one per family?

[The Conquistador]

I'm just waiting for a plague to annihilate us. We are overdue for the next bubonic plague or spanish influenza or zombie virus. Hopefully zombie virus...

Am I bad for wishing for a zombie apocalypse?

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

I'm just waiting for a plague to annihilate us. We are overdue for the next bubonic plague or spanish influenza or zombie virus. Hopefully zombie virus...

Am I bad for wishing for a zombie apocalypse?

Well, either way we are in deep s--t. We need to stock up on food and have our weapons ready. We need to close down Sacramento and Washington and send the politicians to Gitmo. Needless to say I am totally pissed.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by randolph

Well, either way we are in deep s--t. We need to stock up on food and have our weapons ready. We need to close down Sacramento and Washington and send the politicians to Gitmo. Needless to say I am totally pissed.

Heads on pikes!

Advice Dog says:

[randolph]

Ila on the Thames.

[randolph]

The mini ice age starts here

By David Rose
Last updated at 11:17 AM on 10th January 2010

The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.

Their predictions – based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans – challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in
summer by 2013.

According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.
North Pole

The scientists’ predictions also undermine the standard climate computer models, which assert that the warming of the Earth since 1900 has been driven solely by man-made greenhouse gas emissions and will continue as long as carbon dioxide levels rise.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz0cM8G6yx9

Well, looks like we are getting a reprieve from "global warming". Mother nature loves to make us look foolish.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by randolph

The mini ice age starts here

By David Rose
Last updated at 11:17 AM on 10th January 2010



Well, looks like we are getting a reprieve from "global warming". Mother nature loves to make us look foolish.

I believe this to be more likely than GW. Global Cooling...

[randolph]

Global cooling? Well not really, the unusual cold weather is a temporary respite to the relentless warming.

[The Conquistador]

I dunno. It seems like things have stayed warm all year round. It seemed like December was the only month I really had to bundle up and I didn't really have to put on much. The nice weather seems to be shifting to an annual occurence rather than a seasonal one, but that's just me.

[randolph]

Well its a good thing those guys didn't make it.

[The Conquistador]

Whenever I think of dinosaurs, I always envision them with British accents. I don't know why.

[aussiepride]

sorry to restart an old thread, but it has become a somewhat heated issue in Australia.

recently our government passed a bill that brought in a "carbon tax" that is one of the highest in the world... at a time when we experienced one of our coldest, wettest summers on record.
we have also been hit with a levy to pay for a "desalinization plant" (turns salt water into drinkable freashwater), even when our freashwater dams are so far over maximum that they are over flowing.

personally i believe that global warming has yet to be proven, and even if it is occuring that there are other causes for it other than being influenced by "human development"

recent research into global warming has shown that global temperatures have in fact been steady for a number of years now.

[cwjakesteel]

Sadly, Global Warming is real but not necessarily caused by man.

Without Global warming, us humans wouldn't survive. Without the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere the earth would be as cold as the moon.

Water is the biggest green house gas so don't let anyone tell you that carbon emmisions contribute to global warming in any great extent.

What I know contributes to global warming would be:

Deforestation: The release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by the burning or cutting down of trees, and the preventing of the trees absorbing the carbon from the atmosphere.

However, this is mostly countered by the ocean's natural absorption of CO2.

Cows: The methane produced from cow belches is a greenhouse gas.

But enough of the causes. I don't think we can stop any of that.

I care more about the purity of our air rather than the temperature of the earth. I'd prefer if we remove the POLLUTANTS from our air (noxious gasses and particulates). Greenhouse gasses naturally exist in the air, just as bacteria naturally exists in the colon to digest plant food.

But the biggest problem of Global Warming is Green Fascism.

Advocators of a green planet propose that the world population be reduced to 2.5 billion. Killing off the world with starvation, forced sterilization, and the promotion of class gaps.

Also, Windmills cause global warming by mixing the air around the mills, removing the hot air from the earth (cooling the earth) and then heating the air.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by cwjakesteel

Sadly, Global Warming is real but not necessarily caused by man.

...

What I know contributes to global warming would be:

Deforestation: The release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by the burning or cutting down of trees, and the preventing of the trees absorbing the carbon from the atmosphere.
...
But the biggest problem of Global Warming is Green Fascism.
...
Also, Windmills cause global warming by mixing the air around the mills, removing the hot air from the earth (cooling the earth) and then heating the air.

Sooooo if it's not man who's doing these things, who is it causing deforestation, green fascism and running windmills?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by aussiepride

personally i believe that global warming has yet to be proven, and even if it is occuring that there are other causes for it other than being influenced by "human development"

recent research into global warming has shown that global temperatures have in fact been steady for a number of years now.

I wish I had definitive answers, but sadly global warming "science" has become highly politicized. So called scientists have been caught tweaking their numbers to back up global warming theories. There's probably some good scientists out there researching global warming, but without reproducing each of their experiments yourself you'll never know who they are. I do know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that has to be controlled. The science is solid on that.

[Amy]

How anyone can be so collossally retarded as to deny a century of observed facts, which show a direct correlating graph between antropogenic carbon emissions and global climate is beyond me. I swear the only possible way is if the individual is Anacephalic (The medical term for being born without a brain).

Okay, so maybe that was a little too much hyperbole there, but seriously, anyone who takes more than a few minutes to look at the accumulated evidence cannot fail to end up agreeing with the consensus of the world's climate scientists. I can however understand the US being the bastion of opposition to reality, when it is the nation renowned for people who regularly view media sources which have been statistically proven to make you LESS well informed about current affairs than someone who gets no news whatsoever.

I direct anyone unfortunate enough to be in this situation to view all of the following:


For an overview:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change

The facts, made easy. A series of videos on the science, and what it undeniably says:
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...8&feature=plcp

In easier to digest short videos, every argument ever against the reality, debunked:
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...3&feature=plcp

[aussiepride]

Originally Posted by Amy

How anyone can be so collossally retarded as to deny a century of observed facts, which show a direct correlating graph between antropogenic carbon emissions and global climate is beyond me. I swear the only possible way is if the individual is Anacephalic (The medical term for being born without a brain).

Okay, so maybe that was a little too much hyperbole there, but seriously, anyone who takes more than a few minutes to look at the accumulated evidence cannot fail to end up agreeing with the consensus of the world's climate scientists. I can however understand the US being the bastion of opposition to reality, when it is the nation renowned for people who regularly view media sources which have been statistically proven to make you LESS well informed about current affairs than someone who gets no news whatsoever.

I direct anyone unfortunate enough to be in this situation to view all of the following:


For an overview:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change

The facts, made easy. A series of videos on the science, and what it undeniably says:
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...8&feature=plcp

In easier to digest short videos, every argument ever against the reality, debunked:
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...3&feature=plcp

1. why has the global temperatures stopped rising in the last 5+ years
2. explain how man caused the last ice age and then rapid increase in temperatures 10,000 years ago to have the world at its present state? and also explain the rapid changes in temperature "little ice age" in the 18th century and the many other changes in temperature over time

a basic lesson taught in science and maths is "Correlation does not imply causation" and "cause and effect"

if you follow your logic then not only is global warming caused an increase in global temperatures (in the past) but it also has caused global temperatures to remain steady, if not decline (as it is at present).

any scientist knows the dangers of extrapolating beyond what they have measured (ie reading into the future).
although global warming is a widely accepted idea, it is by no means unanimously accepted, and still remains a hotly debated issue within the scientific community (not the same articles that get published in wikipedia), and there are many eminent researchers who do not see what you seem to see in the evidence.

Haven’t you noticed that governments have stopped calling it global warming and now refer to it as "climate change"?

and lastly i am all for scientific debate, hell while something is not proven, neither side is right, and debating and discussing helps exchange of ideas and makes people strive to prove ideas with... evidence... but calling people colossally retarded and anencephalic is a tad extreme.

anyway, always willing to be proven wrong.

regards

your brain dead retard friend

[Amy]

Originally Posted by aussiepride

1. why has the global temperatures stopped rising in the last 5+ years

They have not.

Originally Posted by aussiepride

2. explain how man caused the last ice age and then rapid increase in temperatures 10,000 years ago to have the world at its present state? and also explain the rapid changes in temperature "little ice age" in the 18th century and the many other changes in temperature over time

The last ice age was indeed natural. Temperatures rose as in line with projections you could have made back then based on the environment at the time, something they are NOT doing at present.

Originally Posted by aussiepride

any scientist knows the dangers of extrapolating beyond what they have measured (ie reading into the future).

And yet, so far almost 100% of the predictions made int he last 30 years have been correct. That's what we call reliable projections.

Originally Posted by aussiepride

although global warming is a widely accepted idea, it is by no means unanimously accepted

Yes, it really is. That's why only the same crank books which publish stories about aliens building the pyramids ever publish anything by opponents of the idea. Most of whom are not scienctists so don't know what they are talking about in the first place.

Originally Posted by aussiepride

Haven?t you noticed that governments have stopped calling it global warming and now refer to it as "climate change"?

We began using that term when we realised it was more accurate as it encompasses the changes which occur globally as a result of average global temperature increasing (including certain streams shifting or stopping, which leads to cooling in some areas, and including different environmental effects suh as desertification, flooding, etc)

Originally Posted by aussiepride

and lastly i am all for scientific debate, hell while something is not proven, neither side is right, and debating and discussing helps exchange of ideas and makes people strive to prove ideas with... evidence...

Like creationism. There is not any evidence for one side, but GAZILLIONS of bits of evidence for the other, ALL of which corroborate each other, from billions of different sources, be it arctic ice cores, south american river mud, directly recorded temperatures across the world, satellite imagery, tree rings, etc...
I fully acept that debate has proven useful, it has led to every possible angle being explored. Now we have the avidence from all the new lines of ingestigation which debate has spurred, and they all confirm each other.

Originally Posted by aussiepride

anyway, always willing to be proven wrong.

Good, because as soon as you do any research you'll know you have been.
I recommend getting your info from good, solid, respected scientific journals like Nature, rather than from uneducated babbling fools with nothing more than a diploma in journalism, like Christopher Monckton.

[Amy]

Originally Posted by cwjakesteel

Advocators of a green planet propose that the world population be reduced to 2.5 billion. Killing off the world with starvation, forced sterilization, and the promotion of class gaps.

Or do it the way we have been doing in Europe for the past 50 years. Reduce poverty and inequality, and as quality of life increases the birth rate naturally declines, because more people simply choose to enjoy life and not have kids. Apply it on a global scale and you get an overall downward trend in population until it hits a sustainable level. The main places globally for population increase are places where traditionally large families are the means used to guarantee survival because infant mortality rates were so high, with better medical access, those mortality rates drop and population explodes. Improve quality of life there to western levels, and you should see birth rates begin to drop off again. All we need is to get it to the level where humans on earth are the equivalent of the bugs in your house. A lot of them, but not on the termite infestation levels we're currently at, where the house is beginning to fall apart.

*EDIT*

Also, that's some pretty impressive conspiracy theory shit right there. Well, except the promotion of income inequality, unfortunately the IMF has in fact been pushing that shit for all too long with all the dictatorships they have propped up, and backed in the overthrow of democratic governments...

[aussiepride]

Originally Posted by Amy

They have not.

Good, because as soon as you do any research you'll know you have been.
I recommend getting your info from good, solid, respected scientific journals like Nature, rather than from uneducated babbling fools with nothing more than a diploma in journalism, like Christopher Monckton.

although not naure... All four agencies that track Earth's temperature (the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California) report that (global temperature) it cooled by about 0.7C in 2007. This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over... an article published in 2008.

[aussiepride]

Originally Posted by Amy

The last ice age was indeed natural. Temperatures rose as in line with projections you could have made back then based on the environment at the time, something they are NOT doing at present.
.

projections made by rodent like repltiles that most closely resembled humans at that time?
"correlation does not mean causation"
a simple rise in c02 gases was not to blame for the end of the last ice age (nor the an inverse cause for it).

all global warming :theroies did not put a end date to projections. they were simply that.. projections.

[williamsmith518]

If it were real, then EVERY country should pay per population per square mile and also upon their industries. That would make China paying over half the cost.

---------------------------------
Travesti.

[cwjakesteel]

Whaat? China's CO2 emmisions have only shot up in the past 60 years. Are you going to make everyone else pay who was a part of the industrial revolution centuries ago?

What are we going to have to give up to reduce our effect on global warming? (If there's any significant effect) What is practical without singling out anybody?

And what about that statistics manipulation sham?