Global warming



Ottis

New Member
Aug 19, 2004
100
0
0
33
It is obviously real. If one does not see it as real, one needs to be checked out by appropriate medical personel.

There is no proof that without human interferance the earth's temperatures, etc. would change.
 

lumpy

New Member
Oct 22, 2003
513
1
0
desert_RAT said:
No way I don't think so. We are no doubt polluting the earth. Without a doubt. however, I feel there is absolutely nothing we could do to destroy the earth.

Let every nuke rip at one time and the earth would survive. It would eventually thrive once again.

Science tells us the earth goes through climate changes on a massive scale. Billions of years go by and temps vary here and there.

I just do not agree we can manipulate it that much. Not enough to have that decide the way I vote or live.

That being said. I am for pollution controls. I use to live in Phoenix Arzizona. That whole city is covered with a brown cloud.

I also saw a report on how Houston Texas makes it own rain storms due to the "heat sink" it has become.

I just don't buy the whole "global warming" propaganda.

Global warming isn't going to destroy the earth. It'll cause sea levels to rise and flood coastal areas. Millions will be displaced by the flooding of cities worldwide. Dry areas will become drier. The American grain belt won't get enough rain and crops will fail there and in much of the world. Deserts will expand and place even more strain on the food supply. Wet areas will get even more rain and storms will be more violent and more common.

There will be millions of starving homeless people - if that's not a recipe for disaster and world strife, I don't know what is.

The worlds not going to end. But if you have kids, it'll be a much harder life for them then we have it now.
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
110
63
lumpy said:
Global warming isn't going to destroy the earth. It'll cause sea levels to rise and flood coastal areas. Millions will be displaced by the flooding of cities worldwide. Dry areas will become drier. The American grain belt won't get enough rain and crops will fail there and in much of the world. Deserts will expand and place even more strain on the food supply. Wet areas will get even more rain and storms will be more violent and more common.

There will be millions of starving homeless people - if that's not a recipe for disaster and world strife, I don't know what is.

The worlds not going to end. But if you have kids, it'll be a much harder life for them then we have it now.

Agreed.

And the rate at which the deterioration is setting in appears to be quickening.

I see Britain will not meet it's CO2 emmissions target - goverments need to act and need to be seen to act.
 

MountainPro

New Member
Aug 11, 2004
3,071
1
38
you have no point to make here either...

Bush says "blah blah", you say "blah blah"..

at least Bush's idiocy has a kind of humorous originality to it...your stupudity is just boring.


desert_RAT said:
that's it don't articulate a point. Just insult what others have said.

Yer good!;)
 

MountainPro

New Member
Aug 11, 2004
3,071
1
38
big guy is an insult?

surely you as a proud citizen of the US are familiar with the phrase 'bigger is better'

anyway, why are you so obsessed with big guys?

is there something you would like to share with the group?


desert_RAT said:
You didn't go to far in school, I'm guessing.

That's tuff big guy.

By the way "big guy" is an insult. A condescension towards you. I will continue to use it. Ok, big guy?
 

lumpy

New Member
Oct 22, 2003
513
1
0
desert_RAT said:
Yes. I finally agree with you. At this rate we should warm up 5 degrees by the year 4941.


Although local temperatures fluctuate naturally, over the past 50 years the average global temperature has increased at the fastest rate in recorded history. And experts think the trend is accelerating: the 10 hottest years on record have all occurred since 1990. Scientists say that unless we curb global warming emissions, average U.S. temperatures could be 3 to 9 degrees higher by the end of the century.
Global warming is already causing damage in many parts of the United States. In 2002, Colorado, Arizona and Oregon endured their worst wildfire seasons ever. The same year, drought created severe dust storms in Montana, Colorado and Kansas, and floods caused hundreds of millions of dollars in damage in Texas, Montana and North Dakota. Since the early 1950s, snow accumulation has declined 60 percent and winter seasons have shortened in some areas of the Cascade Range in Oregon and Washington.

Of course, the impacts of global warming are not limited to the United States. In 2003, extreme heat waves caused more than 20,000 deaths in Europe and more than 1,500 deaths in India. And in what scientists regard as an alarming sign of events to come, the area of the Arctic's perennial polar ice cap is declining at the rate of 9 percent per decade.

# Melting glaciers, early snowmelt and severe droughts will cause more dramatic water shortages in the American West.

# Rising sea levels will lead to coastal flooding on the Eastern seaboard, in Florida, and in other areas, such as the Gulf of Mexico.

# Warmer sea surface temperatures will fuel more intense hurricanes in the southeastern Atlantic and Gulf coasts.

# Forests, farms and cities will face troublesome new pests and more mosquito-borne diseases.

# Disruption of habitats such as coral reefs and alpine meadows could drive many plant and animal species to extinction.



I got that here: http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/f101.asp#2

although you might like this site better: http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/kids/
 

MountainPro

New Member
Aug 11, 2004
3,071
1
38
oh dear, you really seem to have big problems with the English language...

i suppose in your brain this all somehow makes some kind of crazy sense.

desert_RAT said:
Seems how I didn't type that word.
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
110
63
desert_RAT said:
Yes. I finally agree with you. At this rate we should warm up 5 degrees by the year 4941.

Actually, mean temperature rates have risen expotentially during the last 100 years, compared to centuries before.

Average temperatures have risen 2.5 degrees celsius in the last 100 years.

You do do mathematics there in Kindergarden, don't ya?
 

MountainPro

New Member
Aug 11, 2004
3,071
1
38
lim, he struggles with basic English skills, how the hell do you expect him to cope with 'exponentially'...i have heard of steep learning curves but that one is almost vertical.

limerickman said:
Actually, mean temperature rates have risen expotentially during the last 100 years, compared to centuries before.

Average temperatures have risen 2.5 degrees celsius in the last 100 years.

You do do mathematics there in Kindergarden, don't ya?
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
110
63
MountainPro said:
lim, he struggles with basic English skills, how the hell do you expect him to cope with 'exponentially'...i have heard of steep learning curves but that one is almost vertical.

Sorry!

Plain english is required.
 

ndbiker

New Member
Feb 9, 2006
60
0
0
lumpy said:
Global warming isn't going to destroy the earth. It'll cause sea levels to rise and flood coastal areas. Millions will be displaced by the flooding of cities worldwide. Dry areas will become drier. The American grain belt won't get enough rain and crops will fail there and in much of the world. Deserts will expand and place even more strain on the food supply. Wet areas will get even more rain and storms will be more violent and more common.

There will be millions of starving homeless people - if that's not a recipe for disaster and world strife, I don't know what is.

The worlds not going to end. But if you have kids, it'll be a much harder life for them then we have it now.

In the 1970's we were all going to die of starvation because of the ice age we were causing because of pollution. If that didn't do it the population boom was going to cause us to not to be able to produce enough food to feed all the people on the planet by the late 1970's. Along with killer bees, various viruses, and perhaps a stray asteriod it's amazing we're still around. So far none have transpired. The media loves disaster scenarios and people love to dream them up. Scientists can get funding to study them so it feeds on itself. We have a tough time predicting tomorrows weather, what makes us think we can even begin to predict our affect on the climate? Reducing pollution, conservation,working to shift to renewable energy sources, reducing our dependence on others for our energy needs are laudable goals for their own sake. I don't need to be scared into making changes.
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
110
63
ndbiker said:
In the 1970's we were all going to die of starvation because of the ice age we were causing because of pollution. If that didn't do it the population boom was going to cause us to not to be able to produce enough food to feed all the people on the planet by the late 1970's. Along with killer bees, various viruses, and perhaps a stray asteriod it's amazing we're still around. So far none have transpired. The media loves disaster scenarios and people love to dream them up. Scientists can get funding to study them so it feeds on itself. We have a tough time predicting tomorrows weather, what makes us think we can even begin to predict our affect on the climate? Reducing pollution, conservation,working to shift to renewable energy sources, reducing our dependence on others for our energy needs are laudable goals for their own sake. I don't need to be scared into making changes.

The science tells us that if the present rate of greenhouse gas emmissions is maintained, the earths mean temperature will rise by 3 - 4 degrees celsius.
That rise is a fact - and it is incontrovertible.

What pattern any subsequent weather pattern changes are inflicted, as a result of that increase, are largely academic.
What should be concentrating minds is maintaining (or ideally reducing)
current/future temperature increases.
The only way to do this is for the world to cut greenhouse gas emmissions - now.
 

ndbiker

New Member
Feb 9, 2006
60
0
0
limerickman said:
The science tells us that if the present rate of greenhouse gas emmissions is maintained, the earths mean temperature will rise by 3 - 4 degrees celsius.
That rise is a fact - and it is incontrovertible.

What pattern any subsequent weather pattern changes are inflicted, as a result of that increase, are largely academic.
What should be concentrating minds is maintaining (or ideally reducing)
current/future temperature increases.
The only way to do this is for the world to cut greenhouse gas emmissions - now.

I realize that many scientist are saying just what you indicate. Many also say(although less quoted) that while there has been nominal increase in temperature over the past hundred years the expected future increase should be much milder than the 3-4 degrees C which you have quoted. Since much of this is theory based on computer models, the observed increases have been anywhere from .3 degrees to 1 degree in the past hundred years depending on the source, I am still of the opinion that far easier to induce mass hysteria than to prove that we are heading for some impending catastrophe. Since we love a good catastrophe it is milked for all it's worth. If you want to reduce CO2 emissions just mandate that all gasoline and diesel fuels smell like rotting carcasses when burned. Then folks will have a real motivation to reduce auto emissions.
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
110
63
ndbiker said:
I realize that many scientist are saying just what you indicate. Many also say(although less quoted) that while there has been nominal increase in temperature over the past hundred years the expected future increase should be much milder than the 3-4 degrees C which you have quoted.

2,500 scientists have put their name to a report issued in Paris this week by UNESCO, which states that temperatures will rise by 3-4 degrees Celsius.

Since Kyoto we have had challenges by scientists - funded by companies such as Exxon - claiming that the evidence of global warming through greenhouse emmissions was bogus.
Their claims that there was no increase in global termperatures or that greenhouse emmissions are causing environmental problems has now been quashed.
That part of the debate is over. Finito.


ndbiker said:
Since much of this is theory based on computer models,

Incorrect.


ndbiker said:
I am still of the opinion that far easier to induce mass hysteria than to prove that we are heading for some impending catastrophe. Since we love a good catastrophe it is milked for all it's worth. If you want to reduce CO2 emissions just mandate that all gasoline and diesel fuels smell like rotting carcasses when burned. Then folks will have a real motivation to reduce auto emissions.

Auto emmissions are only part of the problem.
Emmissions from all fossil fuels (gas/oil/coal/hydrocarbons) constitute greenhouse gases.
As they're burned, they release carbon in to the atmosphere - and therein lies the problem.
Reduce all emmissions is the key.

Ideally, we need to develop a strategy to obtain energy without resorting to fossil fuel sources.
 

Flyer's.Finale!

New Member
Jan 30, 2007
440
0
0
Over population is yet another unspeakable issue re; CO2 emmissions.

In the USA we have SUVs driving up to Star Buck for coffee drinks.

And we are constructing 14 brand new Air Force Bases in Iraq as we contemplate invading Iran from Iraq.

$10 trillion in oil reserves in Iraq alone--at current wholesale prices is why the USA will NEVER leave the middle east.

CO2 emmissions, blood for oil, SUVs and bully tactics are the game---marketing, politics, denial and counter-stories sell the mission to a global marketplace.