Global warming exists (primarily due to human activity).
Global warming exists (not primarily due to human activity).
Global warming does not exist.
Not sure.
That's hardly the final word given that Crichton's book is to global warming believers as Gore's film is to global warming skeptics:Originally Posted by fvc2020
http://www.wunderground.com/education/stateoffear.asp
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ogists-return/
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/27/op...=1&oref=slogin
Earth is about 4 billion years old. Only 65 million years ago - as recently as "the blink of an eye" on the planetary timescale - an asteroid as large as Manhattan created the 150 mile wide Chicxulub Crater near Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula. There's still debate about whether that impact was the singular event that wiped out the dinosaurs, but you won't find many who doubt that another such impact would, at the very least, leave humanity on the brink of total extinction.
A brief remark: The possibility (and statistical inevitability, in time) of a significant comet or asteroid impact has not been "debunked" or scientifically discounted in any way, to the best of my knowledge. Today there is a NASA-sponsored program that is "watching the skies" for potentially dangerous comets and asteroids, but the technical status of that program is far from complete. We need to get "out there" with new purpose-built, space-based asteroid detection and tracking instrumentation if we want to improve our chances of predicting such a collision before it happens. The B612 Foundation has more about this story online ... there's a body of credible scientific evidence (much of it only recently discovered and publicized) that asteroid impacts shaped and reshaped life on a global scale before that recent moment when homo sapiens assumed center stage.
I don't think there's any question that the potential exists for humanity to be "taken out" by another such event in the not so distant future.
Last edited by rinselberg; 10-16-2007 at 08:32 PM.
Are you reading more posts and enjoying it less? Make RadioFreeRinsel your next Internet port of call ...
The scale of time that considered relevant to Earth killing asteroids and other events like these are counted in the hundreds of thousands to millions even billions of years. I don’t deny their possibility or even their statistical inevitability given enough time I merely suggest that they are more often than not over-hyped to motivate an emotional response that is out of context the with real and daily pressing needs of humanity.
I'm somewhere between Jacqui and Karen on this one...
Is the planet getting warmer? Tracking over the past 100 and 200 years, yes- average global temperatures have raised very slightly.
Does mankind affect his environment? Sure, farming, harvesting of lumber, and burning of fossil fuels is bound to have some effect- even if only locally.
Is the slight warming trend due solely- or even primarily- to the effects of civilization? I'm unsure- and remain convinced no one really is sure (considering the best global models have proven to be incapable of predicting global conditions past 20 years). Also, the planet does go through cyclical ice ages and warming periods- and we are emerging from an ice age.
"State of Fear" was an interesting read (as was Gore's book). While the portrayal of environmentalists as terrorists was a bit out there, there were also a lot of facts in the footnote that held up to my own research. Gore's portrayal of the internal combustion engine as mankind's biggest enemy (forget his exact language) is also out there- but probably makes a somewhat valid point.
I know one thing, global warming is talked about on a weekly basis at my children's school (5th and 7th grade)! I encourage my kids to think about what they're being told, and seperate speculation and emotivism from facts and logical courses of action.
Pete Hanlin, ABOM
Vice President Professional Services
Essilor of America
http://linkedin.com/in/pete-hanlin-72a3a74
Just an observation:
Over a VERY short period of time (say the last 9 months), I have noticed that almost every news story on the subject has changed it's view on global warming from a theory to an accepted fact, with the underlying assumption that man is responsible.
This is amazing to me. I believe that during that time frame the Bush administration also changed it's view to one of admitting global warming is happening. I don't know if they have stated it is due to human activities.
Another interesting observation: If you listen to or read new from outside the US (The Canadians and Brits are the only ones I can understand), it is a proven fact that Global warming is happening and man is responsible. They feel that the Americans are only in denial because we don't want it to impact our wasteful way of life. That's just the impression I get.
I would like to hear from our Canadian friends about their observations.
Also, does anyone know if there are any other 1st world countries (other than the USA) that did NOT sign the Kyoto protocol?
I think the fact that we are having this conversation puts us in the minority.
A point well taken. I can see by the post title "Shoemaker-Levy 9...Earth Calling" that AngryFish knows something about the reality of planets colliding with asteroids (or comets, in that instance).
It's not my purpose to "hijack" this thread, but I see parallels between the way that different people interpret the "global warming" issue and the way that the same people (or other different people) interpret the "asteroid" issue. Here's one poster (AngryFish) that I think is underestimating the odds of a significant NEO (Near Earth Object) disaster in the easily foreseeable future - let's say within the next 100 years. (Bear with me as I veer into outer space: I'll come back to the issues of global climate change.)
As recently as 1908 (less than 100 years ago) a significant meteorite exploded above Siberia in an area called Tungusta. It leveled over 200 square kilometers of timber in the form of thick, conifer tree forestation. As luck would have it, there were no recorded human casualties, because just about no one lived in that region in 1908. Just recently, a geological expedition reported evidence that they had finally found an impact site, underneath the waters of the mysterious Lake Cheko. But no one doubts that a meteorite was the cause of the Tungusta "event".
It could have struck Moscow or London. Or anywhere else. And there are more densely populated and developed areas around the world today than in 1908 ... more "targets". Physicists whose attention has been drawn more recently to the phenomenon have calculated that even a very small asteroid of only 100-foot dimension (representing an uncommonly large meteorite), exploding above a populated area, would have the same impact as the Hiroshima bomb, minus only the radioactive effects. It wouldn't be an immediate global catastrophe, but can you imagine the changes that would likely ensue in the years following the sudden, unforeseen destruction of - say for example, downtown Boston? Just extrapolate from what we've seen since "9-11". There would be international consequences. Political. Economic. Even ... military?
An earthquake in any one of the fifty United States could have the same international impact, but it would be an earthquake disaster of a kind that hasn't been seen in the U.S. before - or at least, not since San Francisco in 1906.
Earthquake prediction and mitigation has become a reality. Why not press ahead under the next U.S. president with a more aggressive national (or international) R&D program to start addressing rinsel's asteroid issue? The key is lead time. It will take decades just to begin to reduce the planetary window of vulnerability to an errant asteroid or comet. The first new expenditures - beyond what has already been done - would be modest. Less than the projected costs of sending astronauts back to the Moon: a NASA program which is already well underway.
Returning to the possibilities of global climate change, are "we" standing on "the facts" ..? I'm skeptical! Look at this OptiBoard post (from Page 1) ...Compare that OptiBoard post with this:A single volcano (which no one has yet found a way to blame on Western industrialism) contributes 90% more to global warming than all of mankind's efforts ...That USGS published estimate that I lifted includes references to dates as recent as 2006. Was that scientific estimate in error? In error by a factor of 8,000 volcanoes per year? Even if that estimate has just been revised again ... that strikes me as an unlikely scenario to want to put my money on ... I'd say, go with the USGS estimate; not the OptiBoard post. At least until proven otherwise.Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year ... This estimate includes both [land] and [undersea] volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of carbon dioxide [from] human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production and [natural] gas flaring [from oil production fields] amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) ... Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by volcanoes: the [yearly] equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like [Hawaii's] Kilauea ... Source: USGS: Volcanic Gases and Their Effects.
So, the questions and issues of global climate change won't be settled here on OptiBoard. This is just about sharing. Here's a website that looks interesting to me, although truth to tell, I've hardly even explored it:
RealClimate: "Climate science from climate scientists ..."
Some footnotes: A 100-foot asteroid is so small as to be invisible to the very modest NASA "Near Earth Objects Survey" program that is operating today. They're only tracking the big'uns - the potential "planet-killers". And without a new generation of purpose-built, space-based telescopes, NASA isn't looking at the whole NEO picture. Neither are "we", for the most part. For more about asteroids, see my previous post - and then the B612 Foundation online. For more about volcanoes and global climate change, see Climate 411: Do Volcanoes Cause Global Warming? and Scenta: Global warming versus the volcano.
Last edited by rinselberg; 10-17-2007 at 06:39 PM.
I had to look this up.* A number of countries have not signed their intention to ratify, but it appears the US and Australia are the only two countries that have signed and announced that they do not plan to ratify.
*Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ol_signatories
Global climate change, of which global warming represents half the equation, has become a political rather than a scientific theory. It is therefore tainted by the smell of fools.
Some proponents want to make changes to our present life style that just might reduce our life styles to that of the 1850's and essentially return us to an agrarian society. All of this inspired by the drivel flowing from the do-nothings of our society (politicians and entertainers) who will not be effected by any societal changes.
I'll agree to the first part - caveat that it still is a scientific theory, just over polluted by politics. Which is also a part of the problem. Since it's a member of the "wrong" political party that's been getting the attention for it, many normally intelligent people now reject it out of hand because they cannot stand to agree with anything someone of the other party says. And that is sadly wrong.
Well, I don't think anyone is advocating going back to the 1850's. I don't think there's enough coal in the world to keep all our coal fireplaces going for long. And imagine the environmental mess from that! :D The idea is to reduce emissions in ways that we can because it has to start sometime, why not work it in now in small increments than to have to be forced to make drastic emergency changes a hundred years or more down the road? I think if you are not concerned about the state the environment is on it's way to becoming, then you must not have any children or grandchildren you love because you might be killing them or their progeny. On purpose, though not realizing it.
Don't forget, in the last 100 years the world population has increased 400%
Remember when they thought the world would have trouble supporting 4 billion people? Now it's 6.5 billion.
Hmmm, maybe they were right.
DragonlensmanWV N.A.O.L.
"There is nothing patriotic about hating your government or pretending you can hate your government but love your country."
You are exactly right. Of course the "fools" you are talking about are the right-wingers that live in a state of denial because it is inconvienent to their current lifestyle. Right?
If it were purely science-based as you would like. There would be no debate.
:bbg::bbg: He got ya Marc! :D:D:D
Actually there is plenty of coal. Find a way to burn it clean and you have enough for 3, maybe 5 hundred years. Actually there is a plant in Mississippi that is designing machinery to do just that with the lowest quality high sulfur coal.
Me, of course I still like gasoline, fourbarrel carburetors, long rubber stipes left on the pavement.
Chip
Of course the ultimate answer isn't conservation, we just have too many people. We need to reduce that by about 90%. The method of doing so doesn't really matter.
Last edited by chip anderson; 10-17-2007 at 07:23 PM. Reason: More insane remarks
The total surface area of the Earth is 197,000,000 square miles with slightly over seventy percent of that being ocean. According to Wikipedia, Urban areas occupy only one and one half percent (1.5 %) of the land mass reducing the target area for the scenario you describe to less than 3 million square miles and if you exclude the rural areas and keep the metropolitan areas you cite, that is areas with dense populations, this area is reduced significantly further and spaced randomly around a spinning globe. An ocean impact would be considerably more likely and an almost statistical certainty of a strike in an unpopulated area is reasonable to expect. Steven Schultz of Princeton University explains that an asteroid would need to be “…bigger than one kilometer (sixth tenth of a mile) in diameter… [which is] the minimum size thought to pose a catastrophic risk to humans…” and according to David Morrison of NASA, “Impacts by NEAs of any size are exceedingly rare, from the 5-megaton limit of atmospheric shielding up to the hundreds of millions of megatons associated with mass extinctions. Statistically, no impact is to be expected within a human lifetime.”
There is God and disease. There is War. Any number of things can thin the population. Of course the least likely is our having the sense to control our population voluntarily.
Chip
Ok, you talk about how politics get dragged in and then you say something like that that without hearing your tone of voice I am going to assume was meant as sarcastic and then you want us right wingers to have a discussion??
I can only speak for myself. I am not in denial. I agree that things are happening to the planet that are not good for it. I am wondering how much of that is man made and how much of that is what the planet is just doing and (yep, I'm gonna say it) how much of that was God's plan. I am not stupid or shallow enough to think that what we do every day does not have an effect good or bad on the planet but I object to being told by people who are not scientists or experts but are news anchors or actors how I should live. I would love to turn my house solar....fix it so it doesn't cost 80-120 thousand dollars and I will do it. Make a "green" diaper that I can easily find without a trip to 2 health food stores and that gets the job done and I'll use it. (I would have, we don't need them now) Build a diesel engined car that is new and my family can fit in and I'm at least gonna take it for a test drive. So yeah, I guess convenience is a factor-are you going to tell me it's not a factor for most everybody-not just us crazy right wingers. Maybe I just don't feel like playing the martyr card.
You noted earlier that media is now reporting it like it's fact. I wish I felt that this was because they actually thought that, that they had been true journalists and researched the facts that they proudly presented to back up their stories but this is not generally how they do it. If they really wanted to convince me, that would be the way to do it.
Let the refining and improving of your own life keep you so busy that you have little time to criticize others. -H. Jackson Brown Jr.
If the only tool you have is a hammer you will approach every problem as though it were a nail
Karen,
On your wishlist....VW is coming out with a "blue motion" clean diesel for most of their models for the 08 model year. They get around 500-600 miles per tank and can sit 5 with storage room....the solar issue I think can be directly blamed on the Republican administrations. I know that conservatives love to deride Carter, but he had solar panels on the White House and had a plan to make the US energy independent by 2010. Reagan moved in and tore down the panels and the funding and subsidizing of solar has been set back at least 15 years by Reagan's policies (I will blame Clinton for not doing enough to fix this as well)....There are a number of great diaper options for the environmentally conscious now. Even though they cost a bit more, my wife and I are planning on using them at least part of the time.
www.opticaljedi.com
www.facebook.com/opticaljedi
www.twitter.com/opticaljedi
__________________________________
Prognatus ex Alchemy ad Diligo
Eliza Joy Martius VIII MMVIII
Or it could be left in the hands of supply and demand and if demand was high enough prices would drop as volume and production efficiency increased like T.V., computers, cell phones, and all other technology.
Problem with solar Pittsburgh, PA 59 days a year average with 30% or less cloud cover 161 days that are mostly sunny 49% or less cloud cover. So my taxes should go to improve the affordability of Solar Power for sunny California?
Last edited by k12311997; 10-18-2007 at 10:52 AM. Reason: forgot to run sp check first.
Honestly I heard a brilliant concept for solar recently....The highways and byways of this nation are federally and/or state owned land. They usually have a median separating the lanes. If they were lined with solar collectors we could collect enough power to certainly help significantly reduce our energy dependence. Let the west help produce power for the east.
and subsidies can be unnecessary or hurtful at times, I agree. If it weren't for corn subsidies we could have avoided the switch to high fructose corn syrup as the sweetener that is in everything we eat, including bread...and which has had a direct corrolation with the increase in type II diabetes.
www.opticaljedi.com
www.facebook.com/opticaljedi
www.twitter.com/opticaljedi
__________________________________
Prognatus ex Alchemy ad Diligo
Eliza Joy Martius VIII MMVIII
Good idea, and to fast track it lets allow the government to spend our tax money to do a feasability study, spend our tax money to build the project and then charge us for the electricity.
Or if this is a really good idea an existing electricity supplier spend their money on a feasability study, rent the space from the government (who would inturn find some way to waste this new source of revenue.) and make money from their investment.
I'm sorry, but being a Californian, I cannot believe that private energy sources are better than governmental ones. Enron colluded to create our energy crisis after deregulation.
www.opticaljedi.com
www.facebook.com/opticaljedi
www.twitter.com/opticaljedi
__________________________________
Prognatus ex Alchemy ad Diligo
Eliza Joy Martius VIII MMVIII
One company out of hundreds. There are crooks out there in every industry. But the biggest crooks are the government. Our county government is reducing staffing by 200 positions for a savings of 1 million dollars. That is an average of 50,00 per year salary and you can bet that these are not high level employees, what does any business that does not make a product or have competition do for that kind of money. And I have no choice but to pay it. Yes I'm glad they are taking steps to save money. now let me keep more of it in my paycheck.
Actually I once suggested that we plant peanuts in the same area and feed the rest of the world (Peanuts only grow between Dallas and Rome, GA.). Was told: "Too many of our farmers would be upset because they would loose thier Federal subsidies". No politician recognised that this was the point. If we had a world market (once a child is hooked on peanut butter and jelly, he's yours til age 18) we wouldn't need any subsidy.
Chip:D
That's going to be a big surprise to the folks in Suffolk, VA, home of Planters. You know it's fall around here when everything has a fine coat of peanut dust.;)
Since I can't hear your tone of voice, I will assume based on your post that you are defensive for some reason or another. I will help you out of your defensive posture.
Yes I was sarcastic. I was pointing out that rbaker was saying that when politics taints the argument with "the smell of fools". I'm pretty sure he means that the "fools" are anyone that disagrees with him. I believe that he is unable to see that right-wing folks are the ones that have politicized the issue. And BTW, even right-wingers in other 1st world countries believe that global warming is real and human caused.
And just so you know that I'm not a right-winger basher, I will tell you my background: I am a white male that is a business owner that believes in low taxes, I am a registered Republician. I believe that abortion is just about the worst crime against God and humanity that is possible. I spent time in the military. In short, I am the Republican's goto demographic. They don't even bother to court me (except when they want money) because they know they can count on my vote.
I also have researched global warming like you would like our journalists to. My conclusion is that it is real, it is caused my humans, and that it is irreversible at this point. I have read Al Gore's book on the subject, and have not seen his movie. I don't believe that he deserved the Nobel Laureate. But hey they gave one Arrafat.
I try not to let my beliefs intefere with my ability to think critically.
In the future, parking lots have receptacles for plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles. Many such vehicles are equipped with an onboard, roof-mounted solar power converter. Every parked vehicle recharges its batteries, drawing power from the grid and/or from its onboard solar converter. After the vehicle's batteries are fully recharged, any additional power generated by the onboard solar converter feeds into the grid. The grid could receive power from tens of thousands of parking lots across the country; especially in the Sun Belt. Every Walmart, retail mall, industrial park, hospital, rapid transit station ... feeding electrical power into the grid from parked vehicles that are drawing it from the sun.
I saw that in a magazine a few years back.
I think it's got some advantages over the idea of installing solar electric on highway medians and such. I see some technical problems with that one ...
Last edited by rinselberg; 10-19-2007 at 07:34 AM.
Are you reading more posts and enjoying it less? Make RadioFreeRinsel your next Internet port of call ...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks