Gobal Warming?

[cheferson]

Should watch Al gores movie on global warming An Inconvenient Truth.

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by zimmy

The global warming happening has nothing to due with changes in the sun.

Human activity adds CO2 and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases trap heat. Trapped heat warms the globe. The more heat trapped, the more moisture in the air, the more heat is trapped...

CO2 from cows is an anthropomorphic cause. I won't go into what to do about it...

1) I have read several papers that claim that the sun, or more specifically, the increase in the sun's activity has a lot to do with global warming.

2) No question that the gasses trap heat. The question is how much of the gases are due to human activity and how much is due to natural causes, such as the increase in volcanis activity.

3) How "necessary" are cows?

[stripersnipr]

Originally Posted by baldwin

1) Anthropomorphic means "man-made", caused by humans
2) Nice points, Zimmy
3) There IS a clear consensus among scientists. When politicians dissent from scientific view, it doesn't count as legitimate lack of consensus.

Yes there is a clear consensus that the planet is experiencing a warming trend. I dont recall anyone disputing that.

[stripersnipr]

Originally Posted by MakoMike

1) I have read several papers that claim that the sun, or more specifically, the increase in the sun's activity has a lot to do with global warming.

2) No question that the gasses trap heat. The question is how much of the gases are due to human activity and how much is due to natural causes, such as the increase in volcanis activity.

3) How "necessary" are cows?

I heard somewhere that Mt. St Helens released more greenhouse gases than mankind has in its existence.

[spence]

Originally Posted by stripersnipr

I heard somewhere that Mt. St Helens released more greenhouse gases than mankind has in its existence.

That's just anti-environmentalist disinformation to keep the profits flowing. Complete BS...

Volcanoes do emit a lot of sulphur dioxide I believe, which is nasty but more local in impact.

-spence

[RIROCKHOUND]

with volcanoes, as I said above it is the dust in the atmosphere that impacts the amount of sunlight getting through.
Effects of Mt. St. Helens was far reaching, and events like Krakatoa was global.

[spence]

As an aside, I've heard of some proposals to induce global cooling by injecting man made dust into the atmosphere!

-spence

[fishpoopoo]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Actually it likes 45 of the 50 warmest years on record have been in the last 50 years.

considering that the median number years for NOAA and predecessor data tracking is about 59 years (oldest is 120), that doesn't strike me as nearly enough data to generalize a meaningful trend over the course of a millenia or two or a million.

but to the chattering shrill IDIOTS in this crowd, it's always bush's fault anyways, right?

[RIROCKHOUND]

FWW, I have never outright blamed Bush for this. Clinton #^&#^&#^&#^&ed around with it as well.
I think most educated people would say that something needs to get done that isn't getting done!
You are right, but using the geological, tree ring, ice cores etc.. there are temperature proxy data sets going back several millenia

Baldwin, I disagree slightly, and if you are not a scientist directly working on climate change then you have an opinion of the facts presented, you have to asses your own takes on it, and not take it at face value. Some of that is knowing the who/what/where/when/how of the research. Then making an informed opinion of the facts presented.

[fishpoopoo]

funny how things average out over time.

we've had a warm start to the winter, but the next few weeks are expected to be bitterly cold (starting this afternoon).

my take on the weather as it impacts us right now: follow the course of the freakin jet stream.

[nightprowler]

interesting talk next week regarding this very issue...

http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripert...ad.php?t=37764

[stripersnipr]

Originally Posted by spence

That's just anti-environmentalist disinformation to keep the profits flowing. Complete BS...

Volcanoes do emit a lot of sulphur dioxide I believe, which is nasty but more local in impact.

-spence

The total amount of overall greenhouse gases emitted by St. Helens maybe BS but denying that volcanic eruptions don't have a global impact is also BS. SO2converts to sulfuric acid aerosols that block incoming solar radiation and contribute to ozone depletion. Last I heard ozone depletion was not merely local in impact

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Bassturbed

considering that the median number years for NOAA and predecessor data tracking is about 59 years (oldest is 120), that doesn't strike me as nearly enough data to generalize a meaningful trend over the course of a millenia or two or a million.

but to the chattering shrill IDIOTS in this crowd, it's always bush's fault anyways, right?

This isn't difficult to grasp... The data gathered today can tell us what conditions were like many thousands even millions of years ago. Its kinda like we know somethings about dinosaurs although they lived millions of years ago. Climatologists gather data about the climate from long ago, not just the temp it was in 1900.

Its not bushes fault... however, 5 years ago his VP said something along the lines of conservation of fossil fuels is a personal choice and its basically unamerican to suggest people conserve energy. Things must have really changed in the last five years. Guess it was so far in the future that they couldn't predict anything about the way things would be in 2006-7.

[BassNuts]

Cow farts are created by humans?? I thought they were created by cows?? Goes to show what I know!!

[stripersnipr]

Originally Posted by BassNuts

Cow farts are created by humans?? I thought they were created by cows?? Goes to show what I know!!

I blame dairy farmers and their irresponsible quest for profit while producing steaks and milk.

[MakoMike]

Here is an interesting take on the subject :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...it/nwarm05.xml

[ThrowingTimber]

too many cfc's waay back when..

its too late now I say welcome it! Think about it tuna off the beach

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by ThrowingTimber

too many cfc's waay back when..

its too late now I say welcome it! Think about it tuna off the beach

And massive droughts across the West/Midwest...
Grain production shifting north to Canada...

[stripersnipr]

Originally Posted by MakoMike

Here is an interesting take on the subject :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...it/nwarm05.xml

Good read. It goes back to what I said earlier. When there is clear consensus amongst the Scientific community I'll form a firm opinion. The only certainty now is that article will be assailed as "anti-environment" propaganda despite any facts it provides.

[spence]

Originally Posted by stripersnipr

The total amount of overall greenhouse gases emitted by St. Helens maybe BS but denying that volcanic eruptions don't have a global impact is also BS.

Never said they did. But everything I've read indicates their contribution to greenhouse gases is small compared to human activity.

-spence

[fishpoopoo]

i fart on this thread

[BW from AZ]

How many things can you name that man made? rearanged at the molectular level or combined in differant quantities means it was here already in some kinda form.
Water, the only shortage is what we shot into space and let it drift away. its still here just not where we want it.
Weather, i feel we can only affect it slightly but not change it.
my veiws are kinda weird.

[baldwin]

"Baldwin, I disagree slightly, and if you are not a scientist directly working on climate change then you have an opinion of the facts presented, you have to asses your own takes on it, and not take it at face value. Some of that is knowing the who/what/where/when/how of the research. Then making an informed opinion of the facts presented."

I have a Masters degree in Biology, and teach Marine Biology, Genetics and Biotechnology, and Evolution. I also read many science journals that have to do with biology, climate, and environmental matters. I'm not forming an opinion based on watching a documentary on the Discovery Channel or reading a newspaper article.
Another point I'd like to make: enough of the whining about what percentage of greenhouse gases is anthropomorphic and what percentage is "natural". If 80% is from natural geological and biological processes, and 20% is man-made, and it's affecting climate in a negative way, wouln't it make sense to try and slow it by whittling away at the 20% that we have control over? Or should we blame nature for the bulk of it, and expect nature to be responsible and repent?
If a drunk driver is swerving at you while you're driving your kids to soccer practice, would you keep straight ahead on your course because the drunk driver would be more at fault for your kids' deaths, or would you try to swerve and avoid the impact?
__________________

[spence]

Originally Posted by baldwin

Another point I'd like to make: enough of the whining about what percentage of greenhouse gases is anthropomorphic and what percentage is "natural". If 80% is from natural geological and biological processes, and 20% is man-made, and it's affecting climate in a negative way, wouln't it make sense to try and slow it by whittling away at the 20% that we have control over? Or should we blame nature for the bulk of it, and expect nature to be responsible and repent?

Or, if it's happening and even it's all natural should'nt the planet be preparing for the dramatic change in lifestyle we may be forced to endure?

-spence

[baldwin]

But...you're right, rockhound, in that we should all make informed assessments of "facts" presented, as all sources are not equally reliable. But, the degree of consensus from scientists from many diverse disciplines lends serious credence to their findings.

[fishpoopoo]

Originally Posted by baldwin

I have a Masters degree in Biology, and teach Marine Biology, Genetics and Biotechnology, and Evolution. I also read many science journals that have to do with biology, climate, and environmental matters. I'm not forming an opinion based on watching a documentary on the Discovery Channel or reading a newspaper article.

[ChiefLinesider]

Originally Posted by baldwin

1) Anthropomorphic means "man-made", caused by humans
2) Nice points, Zimmy
3) There IS a clear consensus among scientists. When politicians dissent from scientific view, it doesn't count as legitimate lack of consensus.

Anthropomorphic- Does not mean man made. It is same as personification. Giving human like qualities to animals or inanimate objects.


Original Quote
"CO2 from cows is an anthropomorphic cause. I won't go into what to do about it..."
-zimmy

CO2 from cows is a human like cause?

............Indubitably

This just in.....

Cow farts are to blame for global warming. Real estate nearby cow pastures plummets due to dangerous amounts of CO2 due to cow farts.

[NaCl H2O]

too late

[wheresmy50]

There will never be a consensus on this issue since there's no way to prove (or disprove) that humans are causing global warming, which is the real question. Politicians can't campaign against nature, so the issue is intentionally misrepresented. If you can't prove people are causing it, it's in the same category as the sun burning out and thus not worth discussing.

Greenhouse gas is yet another buzz word that is used to generate an emotional response. Water is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, but you can't win votes by speaking out against water, so you never hear about it.

One of the producers of "An Inconvenient Truth" recently said in an interview that, paraphrasing here, 'The movie is based on science, and you can't disagree with science'. I think that's pretty much all you need to know about that movie.

[baldwin]

Maybe we can run around behind them cows with plastic garbage bags tight to their asses, and harvest them farts. Then, we can reduce methane emissions from greenhouse gases, and use them for fuel. Yes, I is an intellectual, not to mention an opinionated one.