Climate Change

[delmarrey]

is the attitude of the green party groups. They don’t want us building Hydroelectric Dams because it covers up a little land, which forces us to continue to burn more fuel, which in turn supposedly causes global warming, which may flood low lands anyway, So, why not build the Dams first. We’re supposedly going to loose land anyway.

Oh Yeah! That would only be waterfront land, not the wilderness, where there’s very few people anyway.

The logic just goes on & on. One E–group works against the other. Don’t do this and don’t do that. Here, you can’t even build a house on your own property if some duck has swum in the mud puddle down in the lower 40. Remember when green peace painted a bunch of fur seals. They miserly died anyway! http://www.fortfreedom.org/r04.htm

We would be better off running out of oil so we don’t have to deal with all the eco-mania. They would be forced out of the way to progress. Heaven forbid they put any windmills in view of Martha’s Vineyard. I WILL admit that they have done a little good. But, not much more then the post WWI depression. I learned to recycle and be environmentally conscious from my parents who had to survive the depressions by recycling and conservation. (They even use to cut off the fat of the meats to make fuels). This is one of the reasons I got into sailing back in the 60’s….._/) And, for a group of people to come along and create so many restrictions, has become overwhelming.

I work for a strictly “politically correct” employer who will not even do business with very qualified professionals just because they don’t follow the PC rule. Talk about waste. They’ll spend $100’s extra just to stick to the rule (It’s the public’s money). And this Global Warming thing has becoming part of it. It’s turned political. Hmmm! Maybe I shouldn’t be posting this?

Once you get politicians on the bandwagon it becomes fact. They’re already trying to put it threw Congress. We have all that oil up under the Tundra in AK but we can’t touch it until the rest of the world runs out. Hummm! Then maybe we’ll get back our oil superiority?

Some questions:
How much CO2 does a gallon of gas produce?
How much CO2 does a burning tree produce? (Wild fires)
How much CO2 does the volcano’s produce? (Presently active, think Hawaii +)
How much CO2 do the airlines produce, and why haven’t they said anything about reducing air travel???? Or at least talk about filling an airplane full before a flight.
How much CO2 is released when glaciers melt?
How much CO2 is released when cooking your dinner? (Reason for hydroelectric)
How much CO2 just from the breath of the growing human population? Not to mention the cattle that replaced the buffalo.
And on & on!

You know, if Iran were to claim that they were building nuclear plants to be environmentally friendly, they would get the support of the greenies.

[CaptainK]

Originally Posted by rtbates

Global warming won't be an issue as soon as the bees all disappear. Humans will be gone 4 years after the bees from starvation.

The scientists are saying that cell phone towers, are the reason behind the bees dying away from their hives.

If that is the "real" reason behind it. I support banning cell phones. And switch over to satellite phones instead. Due to that they are on a different frequency.

And by the way everybody.

It seems that everybody is not looking at the sun. The scientists who have been monitering Mars atmosphere lately. Have noticed that temperature changes have been occuring there as well. And that the sun has been putting out a lot of heat and solar flare activity in more recent years.

That is something to also think about?!!!

[Alan Wheeler]

I wasn't going to jump into this thread because of the BS that is out there. Every single argument is flawed in some way and the entire excersise is nothing more than either a Money making or Political Points making excersise. And the political points being scored are not just from the Politicians.

Firstly, I am all for us taking better care of our environment. I am all for us trying to recycle much much more than what the world does now. I am all for us trying to reduce Pollution. So don't take me wrong here, I am not saying we (as the world) don't need to greatly improve the environment around us. But what really frustrates and pisses me off, if the boat loads of BS we are constantly dealt up by so called "scientists" with no real evidence. It only serves as scare tactics and ends up with people believing in something that is actually false.
For instance, the comment above about clph towers killing bee's. (K this is not directed at you, you have only reported somethign someone elses has said) But look at this more logicaly. Frequency alone does not kill things. So changing to a satillite system won't do anything different. RF power is what could (and the jury is still out on that one as well)kill a life form. Cllph towers produce very little energy in the greater scheme of things. If a cllph tower can kill bees, we need to seriuosly look at AM/FM radio stations and most importantly, TV stations. These transmiters are simply huge in there power output.
Another comment just above.(once agin, not aimed at the poster)Bees are not the only insect that pollinate. We don't actually have to have bees. Marlborough (my home)is a good example of this. Most of our landscape has been transformed into vinyard. We have also have been hit hard with the varoa mite which has killed of most of our bee population. The averists have taken most of the commercial hives up into the high country as there are no large area's of clover etc anymore. Yet flowers and fruit trees still get pollinated. There are many many other insects that do the same job out there.

Del made a question about volcanoes. Here is a little example of one we have here in NZ. White Island is the most active volcanoe we have here in NZ. Constantly erupting steam and vapours. It is small when compared to any other volcanoe in NZ. On a normal day, it produces 800Tons of Co2 into the atmosphere. It is currently on a level 1 alert. A little more grumbling than normal and the Co2 level has risen to 1400Tons/day. Tha's just one very small volcanoe in a world full of them.
The final two points on want to make. Ozone. Firstly, scientist just don't know very much about our ozone layer, mostly on it's behaviour. We simply haven't had enough years of data to know how it behaves. Yes there was a big hole and it seemed it was getting bigger. In the early days, it was considered that even if we stopped all ozone depleating gasses from going into the air, it would still take decades for it to come right again. If indeed the hole was not supposed to be that big in the first place. Yet strangly we have seen the repair happen almost before our eyes. Once again, don't get me wrong, I am not saying we did not deplete it. I am not saying we should allow those nasty gasses to be released again. What I am saying is that, we have no real hard evidence to support the comments being made that our ozone is being destroyed by us. Once again, a simple volcanoe produces more of these harmful gasses in a day than we can in a month.
I honestly believe there are far greater forces at play that are far greater than our puny time lines of measurement. One such smaller scale (in the bigger scheme of things) is sunspots for instance. We know that there is an 11year cycle of spots. We have just started a new cycle. We know that this has an affect on our weather. Why and how, NO ONE KNOWS.
We know that there are explosions deep in the core of the Sun. We know that these explosions can take thousands of years to reach the surface of the sun. We don't know what this means. We simply have not been around long enough to know enough data. We do know it has an affect on our planet.
The final comment. We are all told of the things that are going wrong with our planet. But we are never told when things come right. This year the thermal conveyor has flowed at the most healtheist strength known for a long time. We have had the lowest number of Hurricanes in the Atlantic this last season and for the last ten yrs. The best and closest to normal trade winds were experianced across the seas. The Northwest passage had severe Ice this year. The ozone hole is greatly reduced. The list goes on, but we don't get to hear that side of it. Plus, once again, we don't know if this is a change in the global system, man influenced or just a glitch that will revert this season. We just don't know. What we do know is that the Kioto agreement stands to make some people and some countries very wealthy. And many of the countries that signed upto it did so because they had the dollar signs in there eyes. NZ was one of them. Then the Government realised they had made a big blunder and it may well cost us severly. I woudl love to know if we woudl have signed if they had of realised the mistake and what the agreement could really cost us. Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't.

[GordMay]

Every major scientific institution* dealing with climate, ocean, and/or atmosphere agrees that the climate is warming rapidly and the primary cause is human CO2 emissions.
Goto: http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities

Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes -- the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)

Excerpted from the U.S. Geological Survey* at:
Volcanic Hazards: Gases (sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide, hyrdogen chloride, and hydrogen fluoride)

* Not exactly "Greenpeace" or the "Sierra Club"

Unfortunately, whichever proves to be the greater source of CO2 (Nature vs Man) – the effect of both natural & man-made CO2 is cumulative. This is unique in the geologic history of the planet.
Elevated things have always been at the natural danger of falling, due to natural gravity. Notwithstanding, there's no reason to give nature a hand, by pushing me off the cliff.

[Viking Sailor]

Originally Posted by Capct

Hell....Mars is getting warmer....what do the gullible ones attribute that to?.....CO2

A cloud of Warm Dark Matter (WDM) consisting of light gravitinos that is changing the thermodynamics of local space?

Constraining warm dark matter candidates including sterile neutrinos and light gravitinos with WMAP and the Lyman-ɑ forest

Today's space weather forcast is for sunny conditions and warming temperatures. Enjoy!

[never monday]

I have to say. The earth will return to a homeostatic state even after the most honorific man made accidents.
Put "prypjat" into google earth and search around. Mother nature is returning strongly and without any intervention from man.

[Viking Sailor]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Every major scientific institution* dealing with climate, ocean, and/or atmosphere agrees that the climate is warming rapidly and the primary cause is human CO2 emissions.
Goto: http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities

Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes -- the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)

Excerpted from the U.S. Geological Survey* at:
Volcanic Hazards: Gases (sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide, hyrdogen chloride, and hydrogen fluoride)

* Not exactly "Greenpeace" or the "Sierra Club"

Unfortunately, whichever proves to be the greater source of CO2 (Nature vs Man) – the effect of both natural & man-made CO2 is cumulative. This is unique in the geologic history of the planet.
Elevated things have always been at the natural danger of falling, due to natural gravity. Notwithstanding, there's no reason to give nature a hand, by pushing me off the cliff.

Follow this link to see a graph of the last 160 thousand years of temperature and CO2 levels:

possible culprits

Look out below - it's going to get cold!!!

[never monday]

Originally Posted by never monday

I have to say. The earth will return to a homeostatic state even after the most honorific man made accidents.
Put "prypjat" into google earth and search around. Mother nature is returning strongly and without any intervention from man.

I errored.
Search "Chernobly" then go NW of the site. This is Priapat town. About 5k from the reactor.

[Alan Wheeler]

Hell....Mars is getting warmer....what do the gullible ones attribute that to?.....CO2

Scientist still have no idea why, but the sun has majorly and rapidly increased it's energy output to have raised the Earths temperature by 1-1.5Deg C in just the last 100yrs. This would also greatly affect other inner planets. Mars being the outer of the inner planets. As Mars has no magnetosphere, Ionosphere and much of the othere chemical components in it's Atmosphere that we do on Earth, the temperature can vary dramaticly. Ranging from 100 deg below freezing at night to 100's above boiling during the day. A small increase in the suns energy would have a dramatic effect on planets like Venus and Mars.

[Benny]

Capct - was painting the bottom of my boat today so could not answer your challenge until now however, I trust that Gord's reply was sufficient emperical evidence to at least receive an acknowledgement from you that human activity is contributing greatly to the climate change problem - thanks Gord. In one of my earliest posts on this thread, I posted a link as well.

Some other posts are interesting in that the pursuit of fact and logic in this thread has suddenly been focused on environmental activists - I guess if you do not acknowledge the overwhelming scientific evidence out there then you can attempt to confusitcate the obvious by casting aspersions on the dasturdly treehuggers. I'll tell you this tact has certainly been a pivotal argument to persuade me to give some credence to the naysayers stance - not.

I have stated as clearly as possible that my view is to try to stem the effects of man's contribution to climate change and general pollution - something we should have done quite a few years ago more aggressively. There is no environmental downside to doing this. It would seem to me that the very people who say this is an alrmists reaction to the problem are the real alarmists ie: it will cost too much; not enougth time; poorer nations will continue to pollute anyhow; it will never work; this is natural and we can't do anything about it etc. These changes can be made effectively over time and Kyoto is an attempt to do that. It is not surprising that the US with one of the highest per capita greenhouse gas emmission rates and Canada has now backed out of our Kyoto commitment
in favour of their new less stringent targets. Unfortunately, this may cause other countries to follow suit and give countries not signed to the accord another excuse not to.

The real reasons there is insufficient commitment to climate change measures are greed and political survival. As I predicted earlier and still believe that common people without these agendas will force businesses and governments to change and put the resources and action into this issue for it is a much simpler solution for the masses out there who are not caught up in the economic and political oneupmanship of the issue. They care mostly about leaving the world a better place for their children and children's children and no fossil fuel tycoon or his bought and paid for politicians will be able to stem the tide of global determination to deal effectively with this issue. It will cost less and be least disruptive to our economies if we start now and personally, I think the fossil fuel companies who are making an absolute killing should lead the way and put some big money into these efforts. Like the old adage - you can pay now or pay more later - but we may also be paying for the fallout of climate change as well.

[delmarrey]

So, What are the biggest consumers/polluters???
Automobiles, merchant ships, and airliners in the billions of gallons. If we get rid of these then maybe we can knock down the CO2 levels.

Whatca think?

I think it's a pay later choice, ask any bank. Modern people want stuff now and are willing to go to hell for it.

Until the scientists can show the public real-hard -proof other then what has happened naturally in the past. It's going to be a long had struggle with stupid little congressional laws increasing the pollution requirements on public transportation. In turn putting the poor deeper down on the food chain.

The government should be sponsoring businesses that want to build affordable electric cars and provide public transportation that'll get you where you want to go, not just down town.

If we quit buying all that junk from china that would knock down a third of the consumption/pollution............................._/)

[5user5]

I think everyone should call all the people that send them junk mail. I have done this and it cut my junk mail down to nothing. How much paper do you think is wasted by that stuff.

[Alan Wheeler]

Sending junk mail should be made a criminal act. I hate it.
5user5, how did calling them help???I thought calling them was exactly what the advertiser would want.
The better idea would be to collect up all the junk mail around the comunity and then go stuff it all back through the mail slot of the company that sent it.

[5user5]

I found a number or website that led me to a number on all of them. They seem to have gotten this quite a bit so they did it right away. The only publication i could not get rid of after calling several times was "The Austin American Statesman". funny

[GordMay]

The two single largest contributors to CO2 in the atmosphere are fossil-fuel burning electric power plants, and car/truck emissions.

From the IPCC “Summary for Policymakers“:
At: http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM040507.pdf

“... The largest growth in global GHG* emissions between 1970 and 2004 has come from the energy supply sector (an increase of 145%).
The growth in direct emissions, in this period, from transport was 120%, industry 65%, and land use, land use change, and forestry 40%T ...”

* GHG: Green House Gas

Antarctic ice core samples have measured the earth's climatic history for the past 800,000 years by measuring CO2 levels inside of tiny air bubbles in the ice.

The greatest increase of CO2 levels, over this time period, were 30 parts per million; which occurred over a 1,000 year period of the sample. In other words, it took 1,000 years for a moderate rise in CO2. The cause of this could have been volcanic eruptions or other natural phenomena. The key is that it took 1,000 years.

That same 30 ppm value has occurred in only the past 17 years. Preindustrial levels of CO2 were around 280,000 ppm and we are now at 381,000 ppm. That's a huge and unprecedented* increase!

* Unprecedented in both scale and pace.

Seeing as I haven’t heard anyone accusing George W. Bush of being an environmentalist nut-case, it might be instructive to review his latest position.

The U.S. Climate Change Science Program for Fiscal Year 2008
(A Supplement to the President's Budget for Fiscal Year 2008)

Goto: Preview of "Our Changing Planet. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program for Fiscal Year 2008"

“... Climate research conducted over the past several years indicates that most of the global warming experienced in the past few decades is very likely due to the observed increase in greenhouse gas concentrations from human activities. Research also indicates that the human influence on the climate system is expected to increase ...”

* Let me make clear, I don’t view Bush as an environmental expert, nor do I generally support his positions & policies.