BIODIESEL & SVO DISCUSSION FORUMS





Sponsors    Biodiesel and SVO Forums Home    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Environment  Hop To Forums  General Environmental Discussion    Anthropogenic Global Warming- Your thoughts please
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 184

Moderators: Shaun, The Trouts
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Anthropogenic Global Warming- Your thoughts please
 Login/Join
 
Member
posted Hide Post
 
Location: Wellington County, Ontario Canada | Registered: February 07, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
10/10 Good 'reality check' links.
quote:
How come hardly anyone is voting??

Most people who read this forum use "WVO" based fuel to save money so they have more time/money for shopping, the bar and sports diversions. Most probably don't understand the question and frankly don't care. The predominant attitude is "WTF did the future ever do for me, I couldn't care less"



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Excellent links.

I liked the quiz.

And, the conclusion is still the same... I don't know... The arguments FOR Human caused global warming all make some sense... yet it is more like trying to predict shifts in the stock market. It is much clearer in hindsight.

There are many huge unanswered questions including whether or not it is actually a problem. What the longterm effects of the climate change will be. And whether or not we would otherwise be experiencing significant global climate cooling which would be many times more destructive. And, if we are actually able to manipulate the global environment so easily, are we actually learning something that will be vital for our very survival in the distant future whenever the earth plunges into frigid temperatures the next time.

What is obvious is that there have been many climate change events over the millenia, many of spectacular proportions, which the earth and "life" endured.

The current climatologists are estimating perhaps a 1 degree change over the last century, which might be huge if it was a continuous climb for thousands of years... yet no changes that are happening now are greater than what has happened in the past.

If you missed the "Flintstones Effect" from the previous age, at the very dawn of Humanity (Homo Sapiens Species), we emerged from an ice age into a brief inter-glacial period with dramatic temperature shifts of over 10 degrees Celsius. The slope looks steep, but it apparently happened over about 10,000 years. This was accompanied by increases in carbon dioxide.

Did humans cause the increase in CO2? Doubtful. So, you get the chicken and the egg situation. Did the CO2 cause the increase in warming, or did the increase in temperatures cause the increase in CO2. The best explanation is that the natural increase in temperatures caused the increase in CO2.

The "Flintstones Effect" is thus that there were huge temperature changes at the dawn of humanity with accompanied CO2 shifts... both with the end of an ice age and the melting of glaciers... followed by the beginning of the next ice age and refreezing of all the glaciers. And, we didn't do it. Furthermore the temperature of that era was actually significantly more extreme (higher and lower) than it is today.

As suggested in this link, the release of CO2 may be from the gradual warming of the oceans releasing CO2.

http://www.ianschumacher.com/global_warming.html

Nonetheless I am concerned with the impact of humanity upon the earth. And, believe that population control is vital for our very existence.
 
Location: Oregon | Registered: October 17, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
8 out of 10 but I answered the way I thought they wanted me to.
I still think it is spiritually healthier for people to think we are affecting our environment, so these arguments aren't helping us. Unfortunately the consensus among those I believe, is there isn't anything we can do about climate shift, except to get ready for a change.


Brian Rodgers

Home of the biodiesel drinking bears.
2005 Jeep Liberty, 2003 VW Jetta TDI
1992 Dodge Dually Cummins Peirce Arrow Dumpbed
http://www.outfitnm.com
 
Location: Northeastern New Mexico | Registered: October 26, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
I still think it is spiritually healthier for people to think we are affecting our environment,
yes it is and yes we are... we've caused 99% of the toxic pollution, deforestation, ground water depletion, overpopulation, etc...
quote:
so these arguments aren't helping us.
Lying about the extent of human effects on the environment helps even less.

Why are we not focusing on toxic pollution where there is little or no argument of human cause and effect?



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Well... The "Spotted Owl" argument is effective.

Old growth forests in Oregon were being cut at an alarming rate, including many on Federal Property.

So, approach the government about Forests, Recreation, rivers, etc... no... the argument is that we were driving a species to extinction, the Spotted Owl.

It was effective, although for the most part people could care less about the Spotted Owl. It was just a rallying point, and was able to shut down some of the old growth logging.

My thoughts were always... if you are wanting to save the forests, then fight on that issue alone.

For many people, CO2 is the new "Spotted Owl".

We can ignore the reality that the whole issue is based on our upside-down tax structure, churches that are regressive and living in the past, and new social policies that it is OK for kids to have kids... And the "bigger is better" mentality that has driven the USA since the founding of the nation.

Nope, all these huge social issues can be fixed by a single molecule smaller than the point of a pin.
 
Location: Oregon | Registered: October 17, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
We can ignore the reality that the whole issue is based on our upside-down tax structure, churches that are regressive and living in the past, and new social policies that it is OK for kids to have kids... And the "bigger is better" mentality that has driven the USA since the founding of the nation.

The thoughtful intelligent people who contribute to this forum don't hold the majority view. The lives of most N.Americans are motivated, dictated and controlled by what they see on TV. The topics of conversation at most holiday gatherings should be ample proof of that.
For a lot of the time their biggest question is "where's the remote control, and what's to eat".



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Jon I started the test and then got stuck at question 3.
Milankovitch cycles have been examined by many and seem to be mostly correct although the 100k cycle seems to generate much more change than the math can account for.

21,000 year cycle: Earth's combined tilt and elliptical orbit around the Sun, I found interesting because the Earths tilt it seems may vary depending on where the ice packs form.

A recent study has theorized that if WAIS(West Antartic Ice Shelf) were to melt the Earths tilt would change by about 1/2 a degree.

Einstein theorized that if the ice packs became loose on the Earths surface, the Earths wobble would throw them off the poles which would destabilize the Earths orbit perhaps catastrophically.

I got a 9 out of 10 mainly because I knew what they wanted me to answer. Question 3 is misleading.

Even if you believe that Milankovitch cycles are the root cause of warming the extra water vapour in the atmosphere that is produced is a greenhouse effect that amplifies the increased solar radiation.
Milankovitch is a theory the greenhouse effect of water vapour is a fact.

Personally I am convinced that the Earth is warming.
I am not 100% convinced it is man made, I have not seen the smoking gun so to speak.
My belief that it is probably man made is based on the many reputable scientists who believe it is man made. The scientists who disagree with the man made theory are very short on the ground and with a few exceptions present misleading information.
 
Location: Nimbin Australia | Registered: December 04, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Did humans cause the increase in CO2? Doubtful. So, you get the chicken and the egg situation. Did the CO2 cause the increase in warming, or did the increase in temperatures cause the increase in CO2. The best explanation is that the natural increase in temperatures caused the increase in CO2.


Keelec you are 100% right in the past CO2 increases have always followed the temperature increase. The CO2 would have come from warming oceans as you mentioned and also increased plant growth.

The man made argument is that temperature and CO2 levels are inextricably linked and where one goes the other will surely follow.

If their theory is correct the CO2 produced by man is but a seed but from that seed a mighty monster will grow.
 
Location: Nimbin Australia | Registered: December 04, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Not only that, but our climate depends on the conditions in the local vicinity of the galaxy our solar system happens to be passing through.
 
Location: West Michigan | Registered: April 26, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
So, if we have "heating of the planet", should we simplify it to a single microscopic molecule?

Are there other possible explanations?

Asphalt?

Direct heating of homes?

Current estimates are that the earth now has about 3% of its landmass covered with urban areas, and 1-2% of the total area including oceans is now urban. But, even outside of the cities, there is a lot of land under cultivation, with billions of square feet covered by access roads and billions of houses.

http://www.earth.columbia.edu/...5/story03-07-05.html

It is also estimated that urban areas are as high as 10°F (5.6°C) hotter than rural areas. While one thinks of this in the summer, the effect is actually greater in the winter due to directly heating homes, and thus heating the environment.

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/to...t_islands.html&cd=no

So, averaging just this urban heat differential out... and one gets about 2% (0.02) of earth times 5.6°C difference, and one gets about 0.1°C global temperature raise just from the "urban effect". Not huge, but it would certainly be significant.

But, none of this could possibly be due to anything other than a single microscopic molecule, CO2.
 
Location: Oregon | Registered: October 17, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by sinbad:
The CO2 would have come from warming oceans as you mentioned and also increased plant growth.

Actually, increased plant growth decreases the CO2. That is why if one looks at scales on millions of years, we're actually running at an all time low of CO2.

And, why organisms like algae grow better in CO2 rich environments. And trees might even grow faster with more CO2.

Perhaps warming also causes an increase in bacteria and other organisms that produce CO2.
 
Location: Oregon | Registered: October 17, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
Warming also releases the vast supply of GHGs that have been locked in the permafrost tundra since before the last ice age. Also there are large deposits of methane hydrates frozen beneath the permafrost cap. We should be looking for ways to harvest them quickly, not wasting time and energy arguing over what's causing the warming. A lot of things are causing the warming, some are human, most are not. Live with it and start learning to adapt to a warmer, drier world. Remember what the Midwest was like in the 30s? That was a dress rehearsal for those who paid attention.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by sinbad:
The CO2 would have come from warming oceans as you mentioned and also increased plant growth.


Actually, increased plant growth decreases the CO2. That is why if one looks at scales on millions of years, we're actually running at an all time low of CO2.


Yes your right I must have had a brain lapse, sorry about that.
 
Location: Nimbin Australia | Registered: December 04, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
The earth warms and cools over time, but it spends 10 times longer in cooler periods than warmer ones.
The earth cools down slowly over approx 100,000 years or so and then warms up quickly over approx 10,000 years or so.
It has spent the last 10,000 years or so warming quickly after having spent the previous 100,000 years or so cooling.
The earth has been hotter than it is now and NOBODY knows if it will continue warming, or if we have reached the peak in this current warm cycle and the earth will start cooling over the next 100,000 years or so.

The global temps over the last decade indicate cooling.
I find the majority of people who disagree with AGW have researched the readily available data for themselves and made up their own minds.

The majority who agree with AGW just pass on what is spouted by the mainstream media and governments agencies as proof.

I recently had one AGW believer send me this email.
*******************************************************************************************
Can you imagine working for a Company that has a little more than 600 employees and has the following employee statistics?

29 have been accused of spouse abuse
7 have been arrested for fraud
9 have been accused of writing bad cheque's
17 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
3 have done time for assault
71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
8 have been arrested for shoplifting
21 are currently defendants in lawsuits
84 have been arrested for drink driving in the last year

Which organisation is this???????
It's the 635 members of the House of Commons, the same group that cranks out hundreds of new laws each year designed to keep the rest of us inline.
What a bunch of b*****ds we have running our country - it says it all. And just to top all that they probably have the best 'corporate' pension scheme in the country!!

*************************************************************************************************

The same person also sent me a petition for the Copenhagen conference asking for support with an impassioned plea by, the unelected UK prime minister, Gordon Brown asking for as many sigs as possible to help stop global warming!

I couldn't help but laugh, are they lying, cheating, dodgy barstewards or do they only have OUR best interests at heart!


*************************
1991 Transit Tipper
1991 Mercedes 709D

*************************
http://www.wastevegoildacorum.co.uk

The Biodiesel wiki
http://www.biopowered.co.uk/wiki

 
Location: S.E. England | Registered: September 05, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
The more I read about it... the more this global warming stuff seems pretty much insane, especially any elements of panic related to it.

I guess it all depends on the timeframe one is looking at.

Here is an article that pretty much summarizes the videos that John Galt posted earlier.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/200...-noaa-ice-core-data/

If you look at the current interglacial period (approx 10,000 years), with the present on the right side of the graph, X-axis in years Positive - AD, negative - BC. I believe the Y axis is the temperature in Greenland, but is considered representative for global temp changes.

It appears as if we actually in a slow cooling trend. The spike at the extreme right is concerning, but really gets lost in the "noise".



Trying to determine the cycles (which seem rather obvious, but a bit erratic) is difficult.

I've modified this image from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation



I marked the peaks and valleys of the orbital eccentricity. While it isn't a perfect indicator of temperature, it appears as if the peaks roughly line up with the interglacial periods (warmer temperatures), and the valleys roughly line up with glacial periods (cooler temperatures)...

And, we're currently heading from a peak to into a valley with the orbital eccentricity, and thus headed back towards global cooling and a new glacial period (if we allow that to happen).

Other graphs indicate dust particulate levels in the atmosphere as also potentially being related to cooling cycles, although perhaps more on a threshold manner than a linear manner. So far I've been unable to determine the current hypothesis on whether the origin of the dust is presumed to be volcanic origin, or cosmic space dust, or perhaps something else.

Anyway, I'm thinking that we need to do a lot more research on heating/cooling trends before jumping on the global warming bandwagon.

But, I do believe in the benefits of preserving some of the earth's resources for posterity.
 
Location: Oregon | Registered: October 17, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Finds
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.../12/091230184221.htm
ScienceDaily (Dec. 31, 2009) — Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
And the debunking of anthropogenic global warming continues...
Jon
 
Location: Wellington County, Ontario Canada | Registered: February 07, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
So far I've been unable to determine the current hypothesis on whether the origin of the dust is presumed to be volcanic origin, or cosmic space dust, or perhaps something else.


I think the increased dust is caused by a decline in rainfall.

Many mathematicians have worked on the so called Milankovitch cycles and the 40k cycle fits pretty well with the data. The 100k cycle however does not.
Orbital perturbations are extremely difficult to work out and even NASA only work fifty years into the future.
The problem as I see it is that the Earths obliquity of the ecliptic would change with continental drift and the location of the ice packs.
Milankovitch may well be right about the 100k cycles if the earths tilt changed.

If the tilt decreased the difference between summer and winter would be less, an increase would mean the opposite.
Recent reports have suggested that the collapse of the west Antarctic ice shelf would change the tilt by 1/2 a degree, but they didn't say whether it would increase or decrease the tilt.

There is a belief that global warming(renamed by GW Bush to climate change) is a global event. The evidence suggests this is not the case and data from Greenland does not always match the data from Antartica.
The medieval warm period for example seems to only have occurred in Europe.

I think most people either for or against man made warming start from a belief and then selectively pick facts to suit their beliefs. This is a sure fire way of not finding the truth.

If you look at the outcomes of the two proposed courses of action in the event that we had it wrong the differences are startling.

The it's natural camp if wrong doom the human race and probably most mammals to extinction.

The man made camp will waste huge amounts of money to save a planet that does not need saving.

So as the bush ranger would say, your money or your life.
 
Location: Nimbin Australia | Registered: December 04, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
The medieval warm period for example seems to only have occurred in Europe.

Not quite true. The medieval warm period was warmer than now and the arctic coast was ice free for most of the year. The Inuit migrated from Siberia across the arctic to Greenland where they traded ivory with the Norsemen for iron tools.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 184 
 

Sponsors    Biodiesel and SVO Forums Home    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Environment  Hop To Forums  General Environmental Discussion    Anthropogenic Global Warming- Your thoughts please

© Maui Green Energy 2000 - 2014