That global warming thingy

[default]

The "first" modern scientist that predicted the sky is falling...
Gore's idol, has now retracted his views, switching to warming causes
CO2, NOT vice versa.

I'll try to relocate the article and his name.

...Jim Thompson

Roger that. Warming causes CO2 to rise, no argument there. There's a
number of biological processes that speed up the release of gas as
temperature increases.

For instance - warming is causing permafrost to melt. The melting
"permafrost" isn't just sand, there are thousands of tons of frozen
biological matter (detritus) tied up in the permafrost - it begins
decaying and releasing CO2 and methane.

It is a "syndrome" there is positive feedback at work. The chicken
lays eggs the eggs make chickens, which makes eggs.

That is what makes global warming dangerous - if it were simple cause
and effect with no feedback it wouldn't be a big problem. This is a
system with positive feedback that takes decades to respond to the
control signal.

The natural carbon cycle isn't hard to understand. When we take the
carbon in oil coal and gas, that has been locked up in a fossil form
for millions of years, and introduce that carbon into the cycle we
unbalance the system - it will take a very long time to re stabilize
even if we cut emissions to zero today.

Think in terms of balancing an op amp with a large cap in the feedback
- you tweak the pot and just when the voltage starts to move you've
already gone way too far. You learn to anticipate and wait for the
change before you introduce more error signal.

Now think of an op amp with a really huge capacitor - takes 50 years
to respond to your input - think you could ever set the offset?
(short of removing the cap while you adjust it).

just my take on the situation - - no expert or even in the same field
as the experts, but I have already seen the effects of climate change
in this location in the last 30 years. It is like population growth -
you don't really notice it unless you travel then go back to the
places you remember from 20+ years ago. Stay in one place or fly from
one place to another and you see less.

 

[MassiveProng]

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 09:54:35 -0700, Jim Thompson
[snip]

As for a "real tomato", you apparently don't know how to shop. I can
buy "legacy tomatoes" at just about every grocery in Phoenix.

...Jim Thompson

We call them "heirlooms." They tend to be hideously ugly and taste
like tomatoes.

John

Yep, that was the word I couldn't remember ;-)

Big, not too "seedy", wonderful on a burger!

Big, red Beefsteaks are the best!

 

[MassiveProng]

There is no category 6, and it appears to me that on average it takes
2-3 degrees F warmer water to make hurricanes a category worse.
Keep in mind that the world is warming unevenly, as expected. The
tropics are warming less than the world as a whole.


Where? Humidity at time of high temperature, or humidity at breakfast
time? 100 degrees F at 80% RH is a dew point about 93 degrees F, which I
think is about the world record - set somewhere around the Red Sea, which
is an especially warm body of water, warmer than the Gulf of Mexico and
tropical ocean areas.

He was talking out of his ass.

 

[MassiveProng]

Are you not counting Greenland's icecap, should that ever actually melt?

Watch the film. Greenland's thermal history goes back tens of
thousands of years, and this is by no means the worst it has seen.

It's a big scam.

 

[default]

Bullshit. There has NEVER been suppression of ANY of NASA's
findings.

I have a 20plus year old Laser disc with space shuttle images of the
ozone hole over Antarctica, as well as the chlorine cloud.

Get a clue. Don't spew so much shit out of your ass claiming it to
be facts. Look around you and learn a little. WATCH THE FILM,
DIPSHIT!

Would you feel better if I called you skank master scum slugger? That
is classic - if you can't dispute the facts, attack the source.

read the whole post and engage your mind before you spew please

Here's one:

The Bush Administration's stance on global warming, and in particular
its questioning the consensus of scientists, would remain
controversial in the scientific and environmental communities during
his presidency. In 2004, the Director of NASA's Goddard Institute,
James Hansen, came out publicly and harshly accusing the
Administration of misinforming the public by suppressing the
scientific evidence of the dangers of greenhouse gases, saying the
Bush Administration wanted to hear only scientific results that “fit
predetermined, inflexible positions” and edited reports to make the
dangers sound less threatening in what he asserted was "direct
opposition to the most fundamental precepts of science."
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush

Dueling scientists

As we have seen, the "dueling scientists" became a common feature of
the prestige-press terrain in the United States. Late in 1990, a
coherent and cohesive group emerged to challenge the claims that were
made in the IPCC reports. S. Fred Singer, Don Pearlman, Richard
Lindzen, Sallie Baliunas, Frederick Seitz, Robert Balling Jr., Patrick
Michaels and others began to speak out vociferously against the
findings of the IPCC. This group is what Jeremy Leggett's book The
Carbon War dubbed the "Carbon Club," describing them as "the foot
soldiers for the fossil-fuel industries."

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1978


Time for a currency transfer

To the surprise of many, the George W. Bush administration released a
report in late August 2004 stating that carbon-dioxide emissions and
other heat-trapping greenhouse gases are the most plausible
explanation for global warming. Contrary to previous presidential
proclamations, the report indicated that rising temperatures in North
America were attributable in part to human activity and that this was
having detectable effects on animal and plant life. New York Times
environment reporter Andrew Revkin (8/26/04) dubbed this "a striking
shift in the way the Bush administration has portrayed the science of
climate change."

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1978

Hansen, who heads NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has made
waves before by saying that U.S. President George W. Bush's
administration tried to silence him and heavily edited his and other
scientists' findings on a warmer world.

He reiterated that the United States "has passed up the opportunity"
to influence the world on global warming.

The United States is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, most
notably carbon dioxide. But Bush pulled the country out of the
160-nation Kyoto Protocol in 2001, arguing that the treaty's mandatory
curbs on emissions would harm the economy.

Hansen praised California for taking the "courageous" step of passing
legislation on global warming last month that will make it the first
U.S. state to place caps on greenhouse gas emissions.

He said the alternative scenario he advocates involves promoting
energy efficiency and reducing dependence on carbon burning fuels.

"We cannot burn off all the fossil fuels that are readily available
without causing dramatic climate change," Hansen said. "This is not
something that is a theory. We understand the carbon cycle well enough
to say that."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0914-01.htm

This is a contentious "issue." One's pre judgment clouds one's
perception.

I'm not saying the Scientists are correct - they could be way off
base. I'm saying that after listening to the science and observing my
world for the last 60 years, I think global warming is very real. If
the scientists want to say that we caused it, they might just know
more than I do.

Massive prong? Ha Ha!

Call me Mister Biggerstaff.

 

[MassiveProng]

Great. Killer bees getting closer - not to mention infected mosquitoes.

Killer bees are nowhere near the big threat they were touted as
being.

 

[MassiveProng]

Misting only cools if the water can evaporate - that's what
evaporative cooling is all about - only works with dry air. Misting
an already hot humid greenhouse only has water dripping off surfaces
it coalesces on promoting the growth of mold, slime and algae.

It isn't temperature it is the combination of temperature and
evaporation rates.

I don't need a primer in refrigeration, chump.

 

[MassiveProng]

. At least you are not
posting tomorrow, as John Popelish did on the basics NG.

Larkin is just too drunk to keep up with current events. Popedude, I
think, is right at the date line, though I don't see the same problem
coming from NZ or Aussie posters.

 

[MassiveProng]

if you can't dispute the facts, attack the source.

You are the source of nothing but stench, dipshit.

Watch the film, see the sources, and then come back. I DARE YOU.

 

[MassiveProng]

I may be an idiot. By God, on this issue, I hope so.

Nope. Your idiocy extends far beyond this issue.

 

[default]

I expect a number of ppl must have concluded that. He appears to be blocked from
this news server.

Graham

Well its been a few years. But if my memory serves me, one degree is
something like the energy released in 2.5 X 10 to the 8th Hiroshima
bombs . . . seems to me like that could be a significant amount of
energy even on a planetary scale. If a small portion of that can
augment a hurricane we have a problem. Or a tornado. or a drought, or
a flood.

One day, all of the land east of the San Andreas fault will fall into
the sea . . . Don't think you are protected because of your location
- you may be; you are likely as not to be, but it isn't certain, is
it?

I may be an idiot. By God, on this issue, I hope so.

Denial is normal. One always has to examine one's own biases when
integrating new data - particularly with politics, sex and religion.

I sincerely wish you are correct - that would be a great. I want to
be wrong about this.

You can never see the truth until you compensate for your own myths.

No, I'm not "blocked" from any server, but my nym and email might be
with all the new and improved spam fighting progys . . . Interesting
idea there - my nym and addy lack imagination. Thanks.

 

[John Fields]

Great. Killer bees getting closer - not to mention infected mosquitoes.

 

[Jim Thompson]

They're just now reaching southwestern Canaduh ;-)

...Jim Thompson

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Agree, at least with the last part. Democratic presidents were
pummeled by the auto unions into not raising CAFE, and the Repubs
pummeled by the car makers, a rare case where the car companies and
their unions agree on something.

I suspect they now all agree on state medical insurance also.

 

[John Larkin]

You are posting an hour in the future. Of course we just switched to EDT 3
weeks earlier, but you are 2 hours ahead of EST. At least you are not
posting tomorrow, as John Popelish did on the basics NG.

I believe it is to everyone's best interest to reduce energy consumption,
"weather" or not global warming is due to our own excesses. Even if we
cannot see a reversal of the warming trend in our lifetimes, it would be
irresponsible and selfish of us to continue extravagent and wasteful use of
energy just so we can aggressively rev up bigger engines in bigger vehicles
while gridlocked on the beltway.

The obvious thing to do is increase the cost of energy, especially
gasoline, and let the market respond. Of course, no US politicial will
touch that one. Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the populist Dems scream
whenever gas prices go up.

We can do better than G.W. (Global Warmongering) Bush and his cronies
announcing an increase in alternative fuel production, while being happy
with small percentage points increase in CAFE of domestic vehicles, and
allowing overly strict safety regulations to prohibit small efficient
vehicles to be made and used on US highways.

We bought The Brat a Toyota Echo, and it seemed legal at the time.

If fuel costs in the US were
more aligned with those in much of the rest of the world, we would not have
as many huge trucks and massive SUVs which make the highways less safe for
more sensible vehicles.

Agree, at least with the last part. Democratic presidents were
pummeled by the auto unions into not raising CAFE, and the Repubs
pummeled by the car makers, a rare case where the car companies and
their unions agree on something.

John

 

[Paul E. Schoen]

The obvious thing to do is increase the cost of energy, especially
gasoline, and let the market respond. Of course, no US politicial will
touch that one. Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the populist Dems scream
whenever gas prices go up.

We could, and should, (but won't) impose something like a $2/gallon fuel
tax, but give everyone a tax rebate equal to that times a reasonable annual
consumption for 10,000 miles with a vehicle that gets 40 MPG. If you ride
the bus, walk, use a bicycle, or drive an electric vehicle, you get a bonus
of $500 a year. If you drive a fuel efficient vehicle, you break even. If
you choose to commute 100 miles a day in a Hummer, you lose. Any excess
taxes can go to alternate fuel research or public transportation. Truckers
can claim the extra expense, and pass costs on to busineses and consumers,
but it will make more efficient transportation, such as railroads, more
competitive. We should stop subsidizing trucks that tear up our roads, and
allow RRs, who maintain their own roads, to compete more fairly.

We bought The Brat a Toyota Echo, and it seemed legal at the time.

I am referring to some European and Asian vehicles that get 50 to 100 MPG
(not even hybrid), that would be considered unsafe on US roads. Sure they
are not as crashworthy as an SUV or even an Echo, but certainly better than
motorcycles, which are legal.

Agree, at least with the last part. Democratic presidents were
pummeled by the auto unions into not raising CAFE, and the Repubs
pummeled by the car makers, a rare case where the car companies and
their unions agree on something.

And their agreement, with short term gains, has resulted in the loss of
thousands of jobs and the closing of many factories, hurting our economy in
the long run. We seem to love being the poster child of conspicuous
consumption and deficit personal financing to achieve an image of material
superiority. Detroit is still trying to unload its 3 ton mistakes by
boasting more power and reckless aggressive driving. Some people have seen
the light, but the masses will probably need something like a fuel
surcharge to change their habits.

Paul

 

[Homer J Simpson]

We could, and should, (but won't) impose something like a $2/gallon fuel
tax, but give everyone a tax rebate equal to that times a reasonable
annual consumption for 10,000 miles with a vehicle that gets 40 MPG. If
you ride the bus, walk, use a bicycle, or drive an electric vehicle, you
get a bonus of $500 a year.

Dump the IRS and use taxes on gas instead. It's always better to tax
consumption, not earnings.

 

[Eeyore]

In the past few hundred thousand years, CO2 rise during a warming period
has resulted from warming, and has been a positive feedback mechanism,
causing more warming. Similarly, temperature drops run into positive
feedback from a cooler world removing CO2 from the atmosphere.

In recent decades, things have been different. CO2 content in the
atmosphere has increased by an amount less than humans dumped into it, so
some of the CO2 from human activity has gone into the oceans and increased
their CO2 content.

Here's a thought.

Are the oceans saturated with CO2 ? I suspect not.

Maybe a way to capture it is to deliberately dissolve it in the oceans ?

Graham

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Here's a thought.

Are the oceans saturated with CO2 ? I suspect not.

Maybe a way to capture it is to deliberately dissolve it in the oceans ?

Or dump it and water on Mars. Terraforming in action.



--
..

--
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..

--

 

[Eeyore]

Eeyore wrote in part:


Are you not counting Greenland's icecap, should that ever actually melt?

That's not what I meant by 'arctic ice'. The ice at the North Pole is floating
on the sea and as such it won't affect sea level if it melts.

The same applies to a lot of the ice around Antartica too.

Graham