Global weather madness

[Rushiku]

Originally Posted by abraxas

Um dude no .... i'm talking corrugated iron shacks, and they make a coal fire inside. There is no electricity in this circuit mate.
Now, imagine several square kilometres, 1 shack taking up about 5-10 square metres, almost nothing between them.

Now each one has it's own unregulated coal fire. I should find some pics.

I understand what you're saying - my point was that nearly everyone on this planet burns fossil fuels to stay warm, and I'll add that we all breathe each others exhaust - yours just happens to be a particularly good example of what we all are doing to our only source of air.

[Rushiku]

Originally Posted by wrightme43

Lets see.

You do understand that is one formation. I can just keep citing stuff that you wont read. The oil in that area should produce for the next 90 years.

I read it, it told me the same thing it told you: there's a mean 3.65 million bbls available there. According to the math, based on 3 year old numbers, 3.65 million bbls is 1/180th of what will be required to satisfy America's demand over the next 90 years (assuming constant demand over that time) or, until the end of this century - a standard you invoked. It's not 3.65 million bbls per day, week, month, year, decade, century or even millennium, it's 3.65 million bbls, period, then it's empty, no more, closed for business. I'm sure you understand that, yet...wth?

Just how many more of these do you think remain undiscovered?

What in the heck does that mean? I am lost as to what you mean by this.
\\"There is a huge difference between being able to do something and being right in doing it.\\"

You said

The idea that we do not have the ability to drill and produce in the US is wrong.

I said, iow, just because we can, doesn't mean we should.

Ok so acting based on historical data that says the C02 level in our atmosphere has not caused runaway global warming in the past. Acting based on models that have no correlation with past events is bad science.

Acting based on what historical data? There is no precedent in the historical record for the current levels of CO2, nor the current rate of CO2 increase. A few blips, but nothing sustained. (chart)

Nuclear power is a good working solution.

As I said, yes, it is a good source of power; however, the byproducts of producing that power are currently unmanageable - hiding them is not a good working solution.

I have spent way way way to much time on this though. I am not going to get you to even read any of the links.

I read them, I just don't happen to agree with them. The McIntyre article simply points out that someone else arrived at the wrong conclusion because they did something wrong - this is the essence of the scientific process. On the other hand, doing something doesn't invalidate the data upon which the model is created - only the output of that model.

I can keep refuting things, but it will not do any good. I try to provide data to back up my positions.

"Odd man out" opinions are hardly data. Data is data, when you or I look at it, we interpret it and it is no longer what it was. Here's the thing: when many people look at the same data and independently interpret it the same way, a consensus is reached. Will there be outliers? Of course there will be. To illustrate: this is data, this is opinion (actually, an opinion of an opinion). Is his opinion right? Heck if I know, I can barely follow it because it's so full of 'insider' jargon. I get the idea he doesn't like what was done, why? what can be done to remedy the errors? Perhaps you can enlighten me?

At the end of the day, any forecast is an opinion, no matter how the good model. I agree, it's not a good idea to go off half-****ed. But do we really need anything more than charts of global temperature superimposed over global CO2 amounts over the last 400K or so years to make us stop and think "hmmm, this might be bad"?

I can keep citing source after source that will show there is plenty of energy. That runaway global warming hasnt happened in the past, and wont happen in the future.

Again, there is nothing the historical record to support this claim because what is currently happening has never happened before.

Basicly my problem with global warming folk, is they are so egotistical as to say this is the perfect climate for earth. we know whats best. any deviation from what we say is perfect is mans fault.

I speak only for myself. I know that the current climate has brought us to this point, I know that too much deviation in either the warmer or colder direction will greatly effect our habitat, I also know that if we can prevent exterminating ourselves, we would be well advised to look at what needs to be done.

[wayne 3]

i wish global warming was true because its to damn cold today to ride in chicago, its normally about 90f and right now its 64

this is the prologue to the book jurassic park. brilliant

You think man can destroy the planet? What intoxicating vanity. Let me tell you about our planet. Earth is four-and-a-half-billion-years-old. There's been life on it for nearly that long, 3.8 billion years. Bacteria first; later the first multicellular life, then the first complex creatures in the sea, on the land. Then finally the great sweeping ages of animals, the amphibians, the dinosaurs, at last the mammals, each one enduring millions on millions of years, great dynasties of creatures rising, flourishing, dying away -- all this against a background of continuous and violent upheaval. Mountain ranges thrust up, eroded away, commentary impacts, volcano eruptions, oceans rising and falling, whole continents moving, an endless, constant, violent change, colliding, buckling to make mountains over millions of years. Earth has survived everything in its time. It will certainly survive us. If all the nuclear weapons in the world went off at once and all the plants, all the animals died and the earth was sizzling hot for a hundred thousand years, life would survive, somewhere: under the soil, frozen in Arctic ice. Sooner or later, when the planet was no longer inhospitable, life would spread again. The evolutionary process would begin again. It might take a few billion years for life to regain its present variety. Of course, it would be very different from what it is now, but the earth would survive our folly, only we would not. If the ozone layer gets thinner, ultraviolet radiation sears the earth, so what? Ultraviolet radiation is good for life. It's powerful energy. It promotes mutation, change. Many forms of life will thrive with more UV radiation. Many others will die out. Do you think this is the first time that's happened? Think about oxygen. Necessary for life now, but oxygen is actually a metabolic poison, a corrosive glass, like fluorine. When oxygen was first produced as a waste product by certain plant cells some three billion years ago, it created a crisis for all other life on earth. Those plants were polluting the environment, exhaling a lethal gas. Earth eventually had an atmosphere incompatible with life. Nevertheless, life on earth took care of itself. In the thinking of the human being a hundred years is a long time. A hundred years ago we didn't have cars, airplanes, computers or vaccines. It was a whole different world, but to the earth, a hundred years is nothing. A million years is nothing. This planet lives and breathes on a much vaster scale. We can't imagine its slow and powerful rhythms, and we haven't got the humility to try. We've been residents here for the blink of an eye. If we're gone tomorrow, the earth will not miss us.

take that liberal media!

[JohnP]

Originally Posted by wrightme43

Nuclear power.
At face value, nuclear power seems a great thing. In fact, I would have agreed with you about building more plants not to long ago. However, out of some 6.5 billion people on this planet, not one of them (including myself) has come up with a viable way to deal with the resultant nuclear waste.

How about dropping the nuclear waste into the blast cavities created by numerous underground atomic tests? These cavities are as hot as the nuclear waste already, and sheilded by miles of melted rock.

How about this one. 99.9% of every species that has ever existed on earth is gone. Dead for ever. At this rate we will all be dead tomorrow.

[FZ1inNH]

Originally Posted by wayne 3

i wish global warming was true because its to damn cold today to ride in chicago, its normally about 90f and right now its 64

Global warming doesn't always mean you're going to end up warmer. It means that there are erratic shifts in the weather patterns that greatly affect various parts of the Earth.

Originally Posted by wayne 3

You think man can destroy the planet? What intoxicating vanity. Let me tell you about our planet. Earth is four-and-a-half-billion-years-old. There's been life on it for nearly that long, 3.8 billion years. Bacteria first; later the first multicellular life, then the first complex creatures in the sea, on the land. Then finally the great sweeping ages of animals, the amphibians, the dinosaurs, at last the mammals, each one enduring millions on millions of years, great dynasties of creatures rising, flourishing, dying away -- all this against a background of continuous and violent upheaval. Mountain ranges thrust up, eroded away, commentary impacts, volcano eruptions, oceans rising and falling, whole continents moving, an endless, constant, violent change, colliding, buckling to make mountains over millions of years. Earth has survived everything in its time. It will certainly survive us. If all the nuclear weapons in the world went off at once and all the plants, all the animals died and the earth was sizzling hot for a hundred thousand years, life would survive, somewhere: under the soil, frozen in Arctic ice. Sooner or later, when the planet was no longer inhospitable, life would spread again. The evolutionary process would begin again. It might take a few billion years for life to regain its present variety. Of course, it would be very different from what it is now, but the earth would survive our folly, only we would not. If the ozone layer gets thinner, ultraviolet radiation sears the earth, so what? Ultraviolet radiation is good for life. It's powerful energy. It promotes mutation, change. Many forms of life will thrive with more UV radiation. Many others will die out. Do you think this is the first time that's happened? Think about oxygen. Necessary for life now, but oxygen is actually a metabolic poison, a corrosive glass, like fluorine. When oxygen was first produced as a waste product by certain plant cells some three billion years ago, it created a crisis for all other life on earth. Those plants were polluting the environment, exhaling a lethal gas. Earth eventually had an atmosphere incompatible with life. Nevertheless, life on earth took care of itself. In the thinking of the human being a hundred years is a long time. A hundred years ago we didn't have cars, airplanes, computers or vaccines. It was a whole different world, but to the earth, a hundred years is nothing. A million years is nothing. This planet lives and breathes on a much vaster scale. We can't imagine its slow and powerful rhythms, and we haven't got the humility to try. We've been residents here for the blink of an eye. If we're gone tomorrow, the earth will not miss us.

take that liberal media!

Understanding this is from a novel.... but, Earth will not be here in billions of years. Current calculations which are more and more accurate each passing day with new scientific data, state that the Sun, our own star, has burned more than 50% of it's fuel for sustaining itself. When a star burns, it slowly expands but as it reaches the end of it's fuel, it expands faster. Scientists say we have about 4.5 billion years before the Sun goes supernova. Before that time, the Sun will expand to the point the Earth can no longer sustain life, thus becoming the same as Mercury and Venus, barren, lifeless, HOT planets. This is why the human race is looking to Mars and the possibility of moving life to that planet. It's a small, brief stop-gap for us to continue to explore warp drive, time travel, etc... to locate a younger galaxy with a place that can sustain the human race. Survival. Will we make it? I'm sure that the race will move to space and find a new home before that time arrives. Science states that time, when Earth is consumed by the expanding heat of the Sun, will be at the 2.7 to 2.9 billion year range. So, we've got a little bit of time left. Go visit those far away places on Earth that you admire in photos before it's TOO LATE!

I wish I could live to see the day we move to a new planet!

Thank you Discovery channel for all the great information regarding the end of the human race and Earth as we know it.

[Mattberkshire]

Originally Posted by abraxas

What i think is an \"issue\" is what's causing it. My take is that cell phones, radio towers, HAARP, and all manner of electronic noice has turned this planet into a great big microwave oven. \"THEM\" that are spraying barium and other minerals into the atmosphere (to assist with 3-D battlefield rendering) are literally creating the global warming phenomenon.

I'm glad someone finally blames me, having worked in mobile telecoms for the last 15 years.

My take on it is the climate....happens. It gets hotter...it gets colder. It's always happened, it always will. How can we stop the chinese and Indians going through what we went through in the 19th century - i.e. an industrial revolution.

Believe in (man made) global warming or not (I don't) the oil will run out. What happens then???? Nuclear powered bikes!!!!!!!!!!

[FZ1inNH]

Actually, everyone is dead wrong. It is insect farts. Too much methane from too many insects.

[BranNwebster]

Global warming man made or not (I it's a natural cycle) you would think everyone could agree that we shouldn't live with this.

Flickr Photo Download: Los Angeles California Downtown Mountains Plane Smog

[BranNwebster]

oops