Global Warming

[wdyasq]

http://tinyurl.com/5uptz

Whatever happened to the new Ice Age of the 70's?

Ron

[zubbly]

Hi Ron!  

wish some of that soot would float over my area and warm things up.  Been a damn cold winter here and tired of hearing something knocking together.  LOL !

have a great day!

zubbly

[Speo]

http://media2.big-boys.com/makesyouthink.wmv

[electrondady1]

 about 30 years ago the soviets approched canada with a proposal to spread coal dust over the arctic snow.  the idea was with all the black dust on the snow the sun would melt it and winters would not last so long.  

[LEXX]

Hmmm, maybe they did it and didn't tell anyone, in Grande Prairie (northern Alberta) it was 10C above yesterday!!  Old record was +7

LEXX

[drdongle]

I'm glad there a healthy scepticism here about such things.

[finnsawyer]

My neighbor was ranting about the melting of the tundra in Alaska.  I pointed out to him that mammoth carcasses have been found frozen in the tundra.  I also opined that these animals probably didn't dig a hole in the tundra in which to die, but that the area was likely not frozen at the time of their death, and the animals were quick frozen after they died.  So, maybe the melting of the tundra is a precursor of a new ice age.  Bottom line:  Climate is highly variable naturally and our little pin pricks probably don't amount to much.  

[Chagrin]

Suggesting that this is baloney belittles the numerous individuals trying to find better solutions to the problem. It truly is a legitimate concern not only due to global warming, but also due to the health risks that the smoky fires create.

http://journeytoforever.org/at_woodfire.html is a good place to get started.

It's a little bit hard to quantify the problem, but here in the US, your average wood fireplace built with no efficiency considerations (which is overwhelmingly common) will put out 40 gallons/hour of smoke compared to the 60 gallons/hour of a large diesel truck -- there's just not enough focus put on the problems that either creates. Consider then the massive third world population and you really have to agree that the problem needs attention if the world is ever going to overcome greenhouse gases.

[drdongle]

There are a LOT of peer reviewed scientific papers that refute "global warming" as it has been sold to the public. in fact the mean global timp has only ( on average) risen .5 degrees F. and that glaciers continually go through growth and decline, regardless of human activity. also the expected rise in sea levels has NOT happened.

The info is out there you just have to stop reading the scare headlines in USA Today, and read the facts that result from research ( by real scientists), rather than computer models that use approximations (read wild ass guesses).

[johnlm]

I think Dr D has some very good insights here.

It seems a report put out by someone saying the sky is falling gets well circulated publicity in all the media (sensationalism sells) while an equally or possibly better researched report saying No the sky is not falling, gets little if any publicity.

It seems people have a natural tendency to believe industry wants to cover up all the bad effects of their doings (and sometimes they do) but this tendency to believe it always paves the path for many illegitimate arguements that the sky is falling.

Its interesting in this story that the sights have moved beyond the bad big boys and are focusing on the multitude of individuals burning dung to roast a wienie or to try to keep from freezing to death.

There are many (manmade and other) causes of these kinds of issues, some bigger than others. Whether it be large factories, wood burning fireplaces, waste oil burning, automobiles, dung burners, cows farting or whatever; if we wanted to start limiting some of the bigger causes we would try corking up all the volcanos.

Im not saying that "global warming" is not a legitimate issue to understand and take caution against, just that it needs to be kept in the proper perspective.  There will always be someone who is concerned about something and wants to do something about it.  If and when many large wind farms start cropping up, Ill bet someone will try to prove that the natural flow of air around the earth is being radically affected by all these windmills and causing major destructive shifts in weather patterns, so the windmills should be done away with.  ( a new idea for Bobby Kennedy Jr here).

Johnlm.

[drdongle]

Thanks for that positive responce John now check THIS out!

http://in.yahoo.com/041116/43/2hw42.html

[Jeff7]

My take on it if anyone cares:

We haven't been around long enough, nor do we have accurate enough information on the history of the planet, both in terms of its atmospheric composition, or its orbit.

Facts are though:

• Earth's distance from the sun regularly oscillates.
  
• Earth's axial tilt also undergoes periodic oscillations.
  
  

Both are very slight, but can still have an impact.

- We are producing more CO2 and other greenhouse gases than any other life form ever has, except perhaps for the massive colonies of bacteria that were the first lifeforms on the planet.

And a good bit of them died off when they would up creating an environment in which they couldn't survive - example, bacteria living in a oxygen-rich environment metabolize the oxygen. Eventually, all the oxygen is used, and they die, victims of their own success. Either that, or some die, until a balance is arrived at.

What I'm saying is, yes, this might be a natural warming trend. It might be good, it very well might not be. If it is a natural bad thing, it could be disastrous to help it along.

[khyber]

I personally think that it can be misguided for environmentalists to argue the burning of fossil fuels MUST stop if we are to change the course of global warming.

I don't think that is necessarily the case.  HOWEVER, I do think that not enough effort is being done; and not enough sacrifice is being made on anyone's part in attempts ACTUALLY improve emmission numbers.

Also, I think it's important to note that global warming is a slight misnomer.  Technically, the greenhouse theory is arguing that heat (ENERGY more precisely) is getting trapped in the atmosphere.  How that energy is expressed in weather patterns is NOT NECESSARILY going to be a rise in temperature.

As an aside, I have read that ocean levels ARE rising in many (though not all) places.

wikki says:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

But that is  a bit sparce and not a great "source"

Also, glaciers certainly DO fluctuate.  However, many glaciers are fluctuating in the same direct with very few exceptions to this rule (I think I have read of a couple in New Zealand and one or two in north america).

Is it a good idea to play it safe or to disregard the theory as nothing more than scare tactic?

Regardless of what we chose, what will future generations think of us? ignorant? steafast? intelligent? blessed with forsight? Cursed with paranoia?