Question about Global warming

[RememberWellstone]

Let me preface and say I think we need to do more to portect our environment, I come from the wanting live clean. I've hated pollution for 20 years and will continue to remain clean and somewhat "green". But..it is 61 degrees here in NW Florida, we just broke a record and will break another one tonight.

Is Global warming something that cannot really be completely touched by our interaction? How can we really know if this is'nt just earth doing what she wants to? I have now heard some scientist are predicting a global cooling? WTF? I do not understand and I have tried to research only to get more confused.

Can someone shed some simple light on this simple mind?

[bananas]

1. Maybe this will help

http://climateprogress.org/2008/02/11/how-do-we-really-know-humans-are-causing-global-warming/

How do we really know humans are causing global warming?*

<snip>

[Buzz Clik]

2. We know with great certainty that the earth cycles through cooling and warming.

Some of those cycles have been devastating to the plant and animal life of the planet.

Past and ongoing research on global climate change has demonstrated that in the next twenty years, we will start seeing essentially irreversible human impacts on the temperature of the earth's surface. Those impacts will accelerate and become alarmingly large by the end of the next century if we continue to emit CO₂ into the atmosphere as we are now. If we add those increases in temperature onto the very slow natural trends, we could be in a world of hurt.

[SlicerDicer-]

3. Basic Informations.

Alright well likely I will get flamed for this.. I hope I do not get banned for this as I registered as this is a topic that touches me quite a bit.

http://www.geosc.psu.edu/people/faculty/personalpages/ralley/

This gentleman has done loads of research work in the Greenland Icecores. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1893089 find out a bit more there. This talks of sudden climate shift in terms of 10-20 years and he fears we could be 5 years into it..

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/Conf2007/Archibald2007.pdf you can read about what David Archibald has written I do not know if this is his latest work offhand. I seem to recall something new coming out in march however I know flames will come at Archibald as he is a EVIL oil geologist and matter of fact could be a warning signal just like M King Hubbert http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._King_Hubbert

There is many more informations such as Anthony Watts dissecting information on GISS, RSS etc temps www.wattsupwiththat.com this gives some ideas of how numbers are generated to create global averages.. some of it quite scary that they "guesswork" filled in numbers that can be quite incorrect. Simply stated that people once thought that the Little Ice Age was confined to the northern hemisphere but there is information during this period that temps dropped in Tasmania.

http://www.stsci.edu/stsci/meetings/lisa3/beckmanj.html informations of what is possible cause of Little Ice Age.

If you feel getting indepth in the Tasmania thing to see the worldwide implications http://intl-hol.sagepub.com/cgi/content/short/2/3/205 here ya go thats a good place to start.

Now here is the truely frightening scenario.. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15448607 very short term and year without summer.. snowed in Ohio in JUNE!!! crops failed.. today if this would occur we would be up the creek without a paddle. We have no stored grain to speak of.. and with things the way they are going we would see widespread famine and perhaps a massive dieoff sadly.'

I find this to be all fascinating. I am staunch AGW denier. I look at the information at face value I cannot take what Al Gore says to heart. I find it to be utterly distasteful and flatout wrong on the comments. I would rather see emissions be dropped not for the purpose of GHG but for the purpose of health and welfare of humanity! I would rather see Asthma rates drop.. Cancer rates drop.. Ft McMurry flagrant disregard for wildlife stop.

I do believe that we are on the verge of something however I do not believe that it is Anthropogenic Global Warming. I do believe in Global Warming and Cooling as part of a Natural Cycle its all cyclical. If you look at Richard Alleys work you will see that he speaks of the Holocene as being a FREAK of nature.. and its as good as it gets.. Historically.. And we have had much more CO2 in atmosphere than current times in his timelines.

I can only hope that people will see what is going on and make proper preparations..

But likely I will be flamed into oblivion I expect it.. Although one can hope for otherwise.. And yes for the record I do believe that Peak Oil is a now problem.. And if not addressed soon combined with the possible cooling aspects the consequences could be disastrous.

[RememberWellstone]

10. You won't get banned here.

This board is the most free speech you will see almost anywhere. That is why everyone here is open to new ideas and new research.

[SlicerDicer-]

14. Thats good to know

I do read all kinds of things on both sides of the fence do not get me wrong. I sat and watched the entire thing Gore did that was posted on the front page the other day :) I try to keep a open mind but its very rough for me given how much I read. I read so much that it gets to the point you are at where its all just a whirring blur :/

I had to come to the conclusion that .0082% atmosphere change is not enough to do anything. And then you get people like Mann I believe it is who did the infamous hockey stick.. Obliterating the LIA and MWP.. Makes me even more skeptical about motives.. That and when you actually look how much money can be made from "carbon credits" or "carbon tax" its the ultimate business plan :)

There are actually reports (can dig up if needed) of CO2 being injected in the ground, old wells and stuff that push toxic materials to the surface and leak out.. its quite gross actually. Sadly I do not have much faith in CO2 capture and storage. I do not hold a large amount of faith in these things.. In terms of my learning of plants as well I have seen what enhanced CO2 can do to plants and its quite astonishing! I think this has been experienced in the real world as well that the best place to store CO2 is plants. However hacking down rain forests and releasing tons of CO2 is another animal all together.

There is so much variability in these things it is quite amazing. Thus leads me to my next conclusion... Garbage In Garbage Out thats what IPCC models are.. There is no way even with 10 million gerbils on wheels they could get that kinda power to process that many variables to get it right.. At least that is how I feel :)

[Birthmark]

4. You are correct...

..you are confused.

1. Weather is NOT climate in the same way that a comic book isn't the Library of Congress.

2. The Earth does not WANT to do anything. The laws of physics govern what happens. Making this as short as possible: The Sun heats the Earth. Some of the heat is retained. Some of the heat bounces re-radiates into space. The Earth's temperature is that part that is retained. We are now retaining more heat than we have in the recent past. Such retention doesn't "just happen." There are causes. In this case, we are warming due to mankind's increased emission of greenhouse gases (GHG), largely but not exclusively CO2, and other human activities such as deforestation. These are measurable reasons that have been tested and observed. It is beyond a reasonable that we are the cause.

3. There are no predictions of "global cooling" in the near term. It is, however, a virtual certainty that there will be ice ages in the future. What that has to do with the current GW is...well, little to nothing.

4. GW will NOT be a uniform process, meaning that the temperature will NOT increase each and every year. There are many other factors involved in temperature. At times, phenomena such as La Nina will cause the average global temperature to decrease for a year or two. That's weather.

5. It is important to remember that GHGs are NOT the only forcing in climate, either now or in the past. At times, other factors will dominate. But that occurs currently against a backdrop of rising GHGs. Physics tells us that those GHGs will warm the Earth.

Hope that helped.

[SlicerDicer-]

5. Wrong on point 3

There is evidence mounting and plenty of it.. Many Scientists are coming out saying that cooling is a very REAL possibility.. And it is entirely possible that our Interglacial that we live in could be ending. Please do research before spouting nonsense.. Look at my above post. The Church of Gore likes to say the debate is over but it is not over if you actually were to use your brain and pick up a scientific journal.

If you are willing to listen I will cite journals that you can go look at.

[Birthmark]

6. Yeah, cite those journals.

You won't like what they *actually* say. ;)

[SlicerDicer-]

8. Here ya go.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VHB-461XRT3-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=973e09e57b4feeb69bc4870b7f3223e2

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006JA012194.shtml

http://www.agu.org/revgeophys/reid00/node2.html interesting informations of what solar cycles can do and between 21 and 22 caused 0.2c change in temps. Pretty powerful no?

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/254/5032/698.pdf?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=solar+output&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

http://npg.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7065/full/nature04121.html

However there has been recent studies that love to bomb this information so feel free to blast me. That Giant Ball of Fire out there I think has largely more influence than increasing the CO2 content by .0082% of the atmosphere.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7327393.stm And yes I know about this and I consider it to be tripe.. The sun having no influence on our climate is laughable at best..

http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2008/04/researchers_find_no_sunclimate.html as well is there it was too.

http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2008/04/what_happened_to_the_new_solar_1.html

If you want more I can dig up more this was just quick slam together. Flatout scientists are not saying global cooling is coming but based on what they see with the cyclical forcing of the Climate and Solar Cycles controlling things such as the thermohaline circulation.. yeah... Where is Solar Cycle 24? Come hither please please.... Please? Their research directly says that if Solar Cycle 24 does not start up and we have a long delay things will go very wonky towards cooling.

:)

[Birthmark]

13. Ya got nada, friend.

Your claim was that global cooling is being predicted by scientists.

This first link says zero about global cooling in the Earth's future. It is simply a paper on observations made in a specific region of the atmosphere over the course of 417 nights during a ten year span. They make no prediction as to the Earth's average temperature.

The second article article likewise makes no climatic predictions.

The third reveals that the Sun plays a role in the Earth's climate. Hardly news, but it has nothing to do with global cooling in the Earth's near future.

The fourth article (sciencemag, just to provide a point of reference) also fails to predict any global cooling.

The fifth article likewise fails to predict near term global cooling. It is an hypothesis to explain past climate.

Neither the BBC nor Accuweather are scientific sources...which is what you promised.

Nevertheless the BBC article says that the Sun has no role in the *current warming* --not that it as no role in climate.

Accuweather really is a joke, and not a very good one. Now, who to believe about Sunspot Cycle 24, Accuweather (really, they are a joke) or NASA? http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/10jan_solarcycle24.htm

You haven't produced a single scientific paper that predicts climatic global cooling on Earth in the near future. Your claim was that I was wrong when I said, "There are no predictions of "global cooling" in the near term. It is, however, a virtual certainty that there will be ice ages in the future. What that has to do with the current GW is...well, little to nothing."

I am still waiting for evidence that my statement was incorrect.

I do appreciate the effort you put into that post, though.

[RememberWellstone]

11. Yes, that did help

On some of my questions. I do believe we interfere with what the Earth is doing, not to the degree of actually changing the climate. If we were blowing up nukes or their were Volcanoes erupting every week. I could see the definite possibility of damage.

I hate pollution because I believe it is unhealthy. Any thrid world nation I have ever gone into, the sheer filth and pollution could cause human sickness. As far as the big picture, I am not sure if gloabl warming is really a trend or if we are actually making the earth warmer.

[Birthmark]

16. Two irrefutable facts.

1. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. That is beyond any sane doubt.

2. Humans are putting out huge amounts of CO2 -enough to raise the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to over 380 ppm from the 280 ppm it was 150 years ago.

Putting those together we arrive at the fact that the CO2 in the atmosphere currently has 135% the warming effect that CO2 in the atmosphere had in 1850. Are you with me so far?

[SlicerDicer-]

18. Sure I agree.

1. Indeed but its very minor. The effects of it are actually quite disputed still.
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html

2. No argument there! Plants are not complaining compare charts of growth rates!

On the final point.. No I am not.. sadly :/ I fail to see how 0.0082% of our atmosphere could do what AGW claims. Given the amount of variablity in the sun and recorded solar variance.

However if you want to see a gas that can truly do some damage look no further than.. http://www.startribune.com/nation/17449574.html Sulfur Dioxide is EVIL to the core nobody disputes this. Actually if you look into the research on what can occur from sulfur dioxide we can wind up with extremely cold summers enough to nuke somewhere on the order of 1/3 or more of the population of the planet through starvation.. in a very short order.. And do not let it fool you it does not require a Tambora explosion to do this. It can be done from a shield type volcano research suggests.

[Birthmark]

20. Okay.

"The effects of it are actually quite disputed still."

That's not quite true. What is disputed is the *extent* of the effect. There is no doubt that there is a real effect.


"On the final point.. No I am not.. sadly :/ I fail to see how 0.0082% of our atmosphere could do what AGW claims. Given the amount of variablity in the sun and recorded solar variance."

But there is no solar variability that can explain the warming of the last 40 years. In fact, the only explanation still standing is man-made GHGs. The math works. The models are surprisingly accurate. And there's simply no other scientific explanation on offer to explain the current bout of warming.

I looked at this long and hard. I didn't even sign onto the notion of GW (as anything important, anyway) until somewhere around 2000. I didn't buy anthropogenic causes until mid-to-late 2005. The evidence is there.

Those that deny warming or man's part in it have virtually no science on their side. And this is, at core, a scientific issue that should be decided by scientists using scientific practices. It shouldn't be viewed politically at all.

[SlicerDicer-]

23. Humor Me

Agreed the extent or effect of it are pretty much the same thing. Perhaps I should have said differnetly? I have no doubt that CO2 has a impact but its quite minimal or at least I feel this way. I know I am not alone either :)

For note before I go on. Look how far back sunspot records go. http://galileo.rice.edu/sci/observations/sunspot_drawings.html

Solar Variability can be explained for the temperature difference sadly.. Looking at the simple chart here.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sunspot_Numbers.png#file you can clearly see that around the period of the 1970s when it was cooler where the solar activity is.. As well as the previous warmings and coolings. What is interesting is that since 1998 global warming has been put on notice! http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html

Something is rotten I must say. I do not profess to know all the answers but there is something seriously rotten.

I have seen no evidence to explain why there has been no global warming since 1998... If it is indeed anthropogenic then as the rates of CO2 have gone up warming should have as well.. Decade is quite a period of time without warming.

Scientists are not always right.. just as a last point on what you said. Look how much destruction of reputations there was over plate tectonic theory. It was huge fallout caused.. And how can we take anything seriously anyway?

[Birthmark]

28. No, sunspots cannot explain the change.

Variations in the Sun's total energy output (luminosity) are caused by changing dark (sunspot) and bright structures on the solar disk during the 11-year sunspot cycle. The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/abs/nature05072.html

The claim that no warming has occurred since 1998 is likewise bogus.

GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
Global Temperature Trends: 2007 Summation

The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. 2007 tied 1998, which had leapt a remarkable 0.2°C above the prior record with the help of the "El Niño of the century". The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El Niño-La Niña cycle.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

If you smell something rotten, I suggest you check your sources. I can smell them from here. :)

[SlicerDicer-]

30. thank you

Sure nature.com has plenty of articles on how its not caused by that and how it is caused by that. Remember what I said about plate tectonics? Hell even yourself you must admit the scares that we have had since the early 1900's have all been unfounded.. whats to say we are ALL not full of hotair.. See I attribute everything thus far to natural variation.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/071213-greenland-magma.html or we could have it totally wrong and its magma... :)

you proved my point.. warming has stalled :)
Tied with 1998!! that means? umm no increased warming? Is that hard to understand?
BTW I will be very interested to see the 2008 numbers :) My bet is for temps to drop.. I am guessing on the order of .3-.5c

[Birthmark]

36. Stalled?

Wait, you are comparing an El Nino year (1998) with a La Nina year (2007) and saying that warming has stalled because the El Nino year was marginally warmer. That's a bit of an odd assertion. The correct method (or at least a bit more correct) would be to compare a subsequent El Nino to 1998; or the present La Nina to the previous La Nina. When you compare like to like, it's pretty evident that warming has in no way stalled, though there will always be some variation in rate and even the occasional downturn. CO2 isn't the only climate forcing out there and no one says it is.

Do you think that magma also melted the Arctic Ice Cap last year? But the article says that the hot spot (if there really is one) is only a contributing factor. It's honestly not that important anyway since we know so little about glacial melt that the last IPCC didn't even include glacial melt in its sea-level rise numbers. They simply don't know enough to make a competent prediction.

Scares concern me not all. Scares occur in the media. I largely ignore the media except as a link to interesting scientific work. I try to read the real scientific work. Some I understand, some I don't. When I don't, I then seek out science websites where competent scientists explain things. There is very little scare-mongering there.

The media almost universally do a craptastic job of science reporting. Anyone who takes what they say at face value (either for or against any scientific topic) will be almost guaranteed to be ill-informed.

I have been struck by how similar the tactics, arguments, and strategies of the anti-GW have been to the anti-evolutionists. It's fascinating to watch.

[pscot]

7. Take a look at the Keeling curve

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve This is really easy to understand.

[SlicerDicer-]

9. Yes! Facinating

except that there has been a drop in the CO2.. its not increasing so either all those 10,000 hybrid cars made a difference or there is something else going on like the relation of formation with carbon 14? It could also be the La Nina and the cooler water sucking in CO2 either way its interesting whats been going on as of late.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2676

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

Enjoy. Likely you did not know this :)

[RememberWellstone]

12. I just got confused again

See what I mean? One scientist spends his whole life determining the existence of CO2 and tracking it. Then we find out what you posted. I give up.:shrug:

[Birthmark]

15. The CO2 is dropping? LOL

Yeah: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/index.html#global

My, my. The stories GW denialists tell themselves! :)

[SlicerDicer-]

17. Indeed that is strange

However global is not very reliable. This is precisely why the stations were setup at Mauna Loa or did you miss that when Gore said that?

[Birthmark]

21. Reliable?

But the link you gave explicitly states that results less than one year old are preliminary. Why would you use preliminary results?

[SlicerDicer-]

25. the results are baffling even for preliminary

Well if they stay the same for Mauna Loa that would be quite something would it not? what if it continues to a downward trend? Even after the La Nina how are we going to explain the drop in CO2?

btw give this site a look over. I am considering and going to survey the sites around me to see if they are out of whack as well. http://www.surfacestations.org/

[Birthmark]

27. Tis a silly site.

But I'm glad that they're wasting their time with it.

[SlicerDicer-]

31. why is it silly? Explain please?

Do you not agree with Al Gore on Surface http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo">Albedo? Its inconvenient to believe what Al Gore says on one thing and deny it as silly on another. If you do or do not you should be able to explain rather rationally why a surface station that is setting in the middle of a parking lot would have higher temps than one setting in a field... and thus why the temps would have increased when it was moved :) So either you believe that the data is contaminated due to changes being made to their locations.. Or you do not believe that Surface Albedo causes increasing ice melt :)

Note: I do believe Surface Albedo does cause warming no deny for me there. I do believe quite a bit of what gore says but there is truths and untruths IMO

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/documentation/program/X030FullDocumentD0.pdf there are regulations at the National Climatic Data Center on how to set these up.. And clearly they are not setup that way so how can you consider the data not contaminated?





I think these clearly show what happens.. Data does not lie :)

[Birthmark]

35. Um, to be honest...

...I haven't read a word of what Gore has written on GW or anything else.

The site appears (and I didn't research this thoroughly, so correct me if I'm wrong) to be predicated on the idea that the ground stations are in less than optimal locations. It's probably true that some are. However, it doesn't automatically follow that that leads to scientists being stupid. That is really the assertion that they are making: That the scientists are smart enough to take location into account and recalibrate the data to reflect reality. It's an absurd suggestion.

Any assertion that warming isn't happening is likewise absurd. It suggest either monumental incompetence or conspiracy by climatologists. Either of those can be summarily dismissed by the fact that plants and animals would have to be in on the conspiracy or cooperating with the scientists to make them look good for some inexplicable reason. For instance:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/19/AR2006121901769.html

I doubt that it's possible to bribe a plant. Yes, that's an argument from incredulity, but I stand by it. :)

[SlicerDicer-]

37. How do you calibrate data like that?

Its like trying to calibrate a room temp with a kitchen stove 5ft away... You cannot calibrate it you will always end up with cooked number.

And it is not some... It is a CRAPLOAD of them....

Do not need to bribe plants look at historical USDA grow zone charts that are older compared to now. There are stark contrast differences... So now the USDA must be saying that the warming is not happening.. Take for instance that the zone 6 has moved south out of Illinois.. Is that indicative of warming? Unlikely...

I am very into plants. Actually to the point that the grow zones make me angry enough to want WARMING!!! however since it is unlikely I have to create my own conditions with.. wait for it!! a greenhouse ;-) Seriously though I know all about plants and their tolerances.





Enjoy :)

[Birthmark]

40. Yeah, but that second map isn't the updated map.

The one you posted is from 1990.

The updated was never officially released...for whatever reason. ;)

However, the unreleased and updated hardiness zone map is here:
http://www.ahs.org/pdfs/USDA_Map_3.03.pdf

[SlicerDicer-]

41. Ok well that still proves my point... even though you did not source

the USDA directly.. Look at the zone numbers.. They are in the same spot as the 1960's so meh whats the change? Where is the change? Is the USDA messing with peoples heads trying to create crop failure? I think not please do a bit more looking before you decide to spout something like that... it just reinforces my point..

The zone 6 is same spot.. Same with many other of the zones however the zones in florida have been pushed further south so indeed it would seem that its colder or has more hard freezes now that are damaging to crops. Either way you slice it it shows that plants are really not able to grow any different nation wide as back in the 60's if anything they are having to be grown further south.. less the microclimates anyway caused by urban heatisland effect.

[SlicerDicer-]

19. Pose a Question to Global Warmers

I have a serious rational question for you.

Dawn of Homo Sapien is somewhere around 10,000bc not disputed really that was when we left the Pleistocene and entered the Holocene, this is universally accepted.

Since the dawn of the Holocene there has been many events such as the Younger Dryas that lead to substantial cooling -6c as well as warming periods. Younger Dryas actually lead to the extinction of the megafauna as well.

Having said all this humans tend to set themself up on coastal areas with rivers. Globally look you will see a pattern. This means 10,000 years ago if we were as advanced as today we would have something on the order of 200 miles of coastline off of new jersey. These facts are not disputed either. Would we have worried about our cities being destroyed? I think so :)

Now look at more recent times. Medieval Warming Period was a time of great wealth, on the other side the Little Ice Age lead to times of great death and famines. It also lead to when the LIA was ending that Democracy as we know it was founded "USA" kind of spectacular is it not? Now lets look at continued warming as it would be. It would increase the growing seasons.. It would push what you could grow further north with more variety. I do not think this would be disputed either would it?

So here is the question. If we are so afraid of warming that leads to great wealth and times of peace vs cooling that leads to wars and famines why do we look at warming as so evil? What is so terrible about warming?

Onto the next question I will ask as well... Why is it so hard to let go of things we have today? NYC may get flooded.. Florida may get flooded but let me pose a question to you. Niagara Falls has eaten somewhere on the order of 180ft away since this nation was founded. What makes us so self absorbed and so crazy to put it bluntly to think that we have any kind of control over what Geology will do or anything else for that matter? I mean if we were able to stop the oceans from rising and falling one would think we could stop equally as powerful of forces like plate tectonics or volcanism!

Just food for thought :)

[Birthmark]

22. That's some bizarre spin.

But as long as you're happy with it.

I will address one issue. GW doesn't simply mean that everyone will get warmer. There will be changes to rain patterns, for one thing. The Sahara is plenty warm but it's not very good crop land. It's entirely possible that GW could be a boon --but highly improbable. It's much more possible that there will be mass extinctions (in addition to the current levels), starvation, and chaos.

Do we feel lucky?

Actually, I believe it's too late to do anything anyway. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try, but I don't expect any positive results that will justify such efforts materially. But I think that morally and philosophically we are bound to at least attempt to cut down our CO2 emissions.

Side question: If we could cut our CO2 output to near zero and suffer no economic effects, would you be in favor of it?

[SlicerDicer-]

24. My name be DJ Spinnzor ;-)

Indeed it is some serious spin but it does deserve some merit. As well the only reason the Sahara is not valid cropland is rain.. Historically there was plenty of vegetation there. Actually you could setup Desalination plants all along the gulf powered by nuclear power and drive water up north and keep the land producing if needed. Granted this kind of action would kill half the gulf its doable :) But naturally I am sure you can see where I am coming from with the spun post there. Historically I am not too far off I do not think.

Response to side question.

I do not care about CO2 in the slightest.. I care about all the other toxins released that cause increased Asthma rates as well as Cancer and multitude of other health effects. And cutting CO2 output to near zero would you be willing to quit breathing? But yes I would be in favor of getting rid of ICE "Internal Combustion Engine" and Coal.. Personally I would rather see all the energy we get from the sun.. By sun I mean not burning old solar reserves that are fossilized :)

Yeah I kinda dodged that but yes if it could be done smash it home get it done. Get rid of all of it possible as it creates sideffect toxins :)



Side Question for you.
Polar Bear populations are rebounding are you aware of this?
Jaguar populations are starting to push back into USA after being culled out! http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/slideshow/photo//080325/photos_lf/2008_03_24t200824_450x344_us_usa_borders_jaguar/

Extinctions occur yes I fully am aware.

[Birthmark]

26. At what point would such a desalination project start?

It's not something that could be done quickly and easily --if it can be done at all. It would take years, probably decades to complete, especially with nuclear power. By then, the Corn Belt might well become the Sand Belt, with millions or perhaps billions of people starving to death in the meantime.

This is one of those things that the free market doesn't do very well. It simply doesn't reward those who look far into the future unless there is profit to made in the short-term, as well. So such a program would have to be government funded.

"Yeah I kinda dodged that but yes if it could be done smash it home get it done."

Thanks. That follows a personal hypothesis that I'm working on.

The notion that polar bear populations are increasing is pretty ill-founded, imo. http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/bear-facts/

I am aware of the Jaguars. Like the polar bears, I am aware of no reliable evidence that their numbers are increasing. More sightings doesn't necessarily translate into more animals.

[SlicerDicer-]

29. Desal plants

Well I am not sure if you realize but GE sells complete reactors and I believe Westinghouse does as well.
I know people who personally watched nukes go up and they took 5 years in the past why decades now? Are we that less efficient? Saudi Arabia shows that desal does work :)

Also about the corn belt turning to sand belt. I have been reading a whole lot in regards to deforestation and desertification. It is quite a facinating thing... in reality to save ourself from ultimate distruction of this scenario will require trees and permaculture practices. I will post up some pictures of you wish of the Permaculture I am doing experiments anyway :)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/09/wpolar09.xml

Has nothing to do with anything but preventing poaching IMO.. Polar Bears are wonderful creatures :) when viewed from a distance.. they will eat ya! yes I am being serious... they like the Kodiak are really nasty bears..

True on the sightings/numbers however polar bears are being tagged so we will see. Give it time the jury is not out yet.

[Birthmark]

34. Well, to be fair...

...I said it would take years, perhaps decades. That is predicated upon the idea that there is probably a limited number of people who are qualified to build nuclear power plants, so that the plants couldn't all be built at once.

But we are still left with the fact that someone has to plan this before we need it to avert famine. GE and Westinghouse aren't going to put up dozens of plants unless someone is willing to pay for it.

And, yes, polar bears are aggressive. They live in an environment where food is pretty much whatever they can find when they can find it. That can indeed mean us. Even black bears are dangerous, though. And they have it easy.

I agree that the jury is still out on the populations of polar bears and jaguars.

[SlicerDicer-]

38. I understand what your stabbing at

that nobody is qualified to build.. Look at the informations regarding welding and french nuke plants. Substandard welds :/

Unlikely it will be built. More than likely this is for the better heh

indeed.. GET IN MY BELLY!! thats what they say. However I did live in Aspen Colorado for a period of time. I will say black bears are neato. They dont bother you too much.

What truely concerns me is Salmon Lice and other things that are impacting our seafood.. that has wide ranging effects.. As well as the over fishing of cod and the like.

[Birthmark]

39. Haven't heard of salmon lice

The overfishing I've been aware of, though.

I only had one problem with a black bear...and that was my fault. It wasn't very serious. He/she just gave me the ol' mock charge. I took his/her point. :)

[SlicerDicer-]

42. Heh I read alot about alot..

http://www.brightcove.tv/title.jsp?title=1407498849&channel=1396556543

Lice harboured by farmed fish are killing wild salmon on Canada’s west coast.

http://www.vetscite.org/publish/items/004165/index.html

Why is it farmed? Cause it has been over fished to a oblivion.. actually look at the hatcheries and how many they actually hatch there and the numbers are mind boggling.. This is not done for fun its done to preserve the species. I fully understand humans can have impact on things and this is one of them and its next to tragic. However I do not like Salmon no matter the type I lived in seattle for 5 years and its just blah. I prefer warm water fish myself. I do however like cod but likely they will suffer the same fate.

As for the bears yeah they just kinda mosey by unless there are cubs around from what I understand :)

[tucsonlib]

32. Doesn't Really Matter

Let's look at a couple of possible scenarios:

1. We do nothing to combat global warming, and it turns out all those scientists were right. Mankind is screwed.

2. We make global warming a national priority, investing vast sums to develop alternative energy sources. Millions of new jobs are created. Our air and water is cleaned up. We become energy independent. New technologies are discovered. Everyone is healthier. And then - It turns out the wingers were right. Global warming was nothing but a left-wing conspiracy. We still win.

Yeah, I know, the naysayers out there will offer a third choice: Do nothing, because global warming is almost certainly a bogus theory. To them I would ask: Do you really want to take that risk? And besides, why should we? A national program to fight global warming creates a win win situation.

[SlicerDicer-]

33. do you actually understand what it will take to become energy

independent at this stage? I am serious.. Alternative energies thus far put forth have done nothing except make people go to the brink of starvation... If thats your goal fine! Look at the news around the world in Haiti, Egypt, India etc etc.. As for new technologies discovered? I am highly pessimistic about this I do not think there will be true research done that can replace Fossil Fuels.. If you truly look at what fossil fuels are they are HUGE sources of energy.. I linked in a different thread the 1 cubic mile of freedom, this outlays the daunting task and why nobody has come up with anything.

Let me ask you this do you know what the proposed carrying capacity of the planet without fossil fuel based fertilizers is? Lets consider this http://oregonprogress.oregonstate.edu/story.php?S_No=206&storyType=oap&cmd=pf">From Oregon State and I quote "Modern agriculture experienced huge increases in crop yields." do you understand what leads to this? This is directly derived from fossil fuels.. Take that away? You have a carrying capacity of near 2 billion people.. Here is some more information http://bcn.boulder.co.us/basin/local/sustain6.htm">here. Do not think that I am not thinking it cannot be done.. I have hope that people can turn things around I have hope that people will change.. But turning land that has been killed by petrochemical fertilizers to productive land without takes time. If we are to do it we need a new breed of farmers who are not more of the same.. We need to stop wasting our urine and fecal matter down the toilet. We need to capture these things and work on completing the nitrogen cycle.. We need to stop throwing away banana peels and excess food. These things need to be recycled back into the nitrogen cycle.. The problem is we are pumping all the nutrients into the soil then square back out.. This is not helping anything at all except killing life in the oceans creating deadzones.

I know there is a HUGE daunting task at hand but it requires old technology it requires radical new ways of thinking that revert to old.. We must do things I agree but I do not see anybody doing anything but sitting on their dead ass watching american idol.. I talk to some people about sustainable agriculture they skoff at me or farms being decimated by cities.. They say well thats progress.. Yeah thats progress where they come in rip up the frickin topsoil that infact if you are not aware is very shallow and then plant houses.. No matter how you slice it chewing up farmland to make homes is a bad idea.. We need to go back to the sense of community local grown crops without vast distance transport. Yes this means you wont be able to get things at times of year but are you willing to sacrifice? Are you willing to downsize your home so your ecofootprint is not as large? In order to be sustainable families will need to work together families will need to farm and it will require people working on farms doing manual labor to make this work. However if you actually look at the statistics it would require avg 4hours a day for every person to do sustainable agriculture thats it!

There are studies done in Australia where barren dry land has been turned fertile.. Salinity has dropped due to practices that are sustainable. Even water returned to the soil! This requires manual labor are you willing to do this?

Are you willing to make sacrifices needed to make things work? Are you willing to give up 50+% of your lifestyle and watch the USA go into recession to make things sustainable? as we are headed right now its totally unsustainable and the only way to right it is to deflate things. I am a realist but also a dreamer I can hope and dream as Barack does that change can happen. But I am mighty pesimistic of people in this instant gratification society we live in. Can you prove me wrong? Can everybody here prove me wrong? If you can then we need to work together on this collectively everybody down to the children of this country if we want change.. Its a tough call but hey..

Let me ask you this. Are you able to grow your own food? I am working on becoming 100% self sustainable myself in suburbia! well less the fuel needed to drive around and I use about 40 gallons a month very little. I am growing full heirloom plants in organic conditions. I find it relaxing as well I know whats in my food :)

I know I can harp on but I have a leg to stand on here as I am actually doing things! What are you doing?

Truely I hope that people will wake up and make change happen change you can believe in! Change that will change the face of this country! Change that will not make neighbors afraid of eachother but make them embrace eachother!

Side Note, Maybe I should start blogging on all this to show people what I am doing :)