Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Nature
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-13-2011, 01:32 PM
 
28,803 posts, read 47,514,684 times
Reputation: 37905

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
It stretches my credulity, to ask me to believe that in the few short years of heavy fuel-burning industry, it is just a coincidence that the planet went through one of its own cycles of adjustment at the same time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harry chickpea View Post
You might want to ask Eric the Red about that. His attempts to colonize in Canada occurred before this industrial era, and were only possible because of warming.
And you might want to research why attempts to colonize Greenland failed.

History of Greenland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"At the time of the Norse settlement, the inner regions of the long fjords where the settlements were located were very different from today. Excavations show that there were considerable birch woods with birch trees up to 4 to 6 meters high[citation needed] in the area around the inner parts of the Tunuliarfik- and Aniaaq-fjords, the central area of the Eastern settlement, and the hills were grown with grass and willow brushes. This was due to the medieval climate optimum. The Norse soon changed the vegetation[citation needed] by cutting down the trees to use as building material and for heating and by extensive sheep and goat grazing during summer and winter. The climate in Greenland was much warmer during the 1st centuries of settlement but became increasingly colder in the 14th and 15th centuries with the approaching period of colder weather known as the Little Ice Age."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-13-2011, 02:05 PM
 
41,815 posts, read 50,811,595 times
Reputation: 17863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tek_Freek View Post

Someone needs to explain to me how in the hell global warming caused an earthquake.

The new trend is to link anything to GW, snow? GW. No snow? GW. Earhtquake? GW. Same thing after the Haiti earthquake, I even recall someone trying to link the BP spill to GW... The environmentalists and activists have been very good at spreading their propaganda helped by mainstream media that eats it up because sensationalizing any event or non event sells. Historical precedence for these events is thrown out the window.

There was an article about how California is due for some massive flooding, they know this because historically this happens every 200 to 300 years. Even that article couldn't help mentioning GW.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2011, 10:21 PM
 
23,533 posts, read 69,968,609 times
Reputation: 48953
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tek_Freek View Post
And you might want to research why attempts to colonize Greenland failed.

History of Greenland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"At the time of the Norse settlement, the inner regions of the long fjords where the settlements were located were very different from today. Excavations show that there were considerable birch woods with birch trees up to 4 to 6 meters high[citation needed] in the area around the inner parts of the Tunuliarfik- and Aniaaq-fjords, the central area of the Eastern settlement, and the hills were grown with grass and willow brushes. This was due to the medieval climate optimum. The Norse soon changed the vegetation[citation needed] by cutting down the trees to use as building material and for heating and by extensive sheep and goat grazing during summer and winter. The climate in Greenland was much warmer during the 1st centuries of settlement but became increasingly colder in the 14th and 15th centuries with the approaching period of colder weather known as the Little Ice Age."
Well there is our answer! All we need to do is get more goats to graze and the climate will cool. How neat is that?

I was referring to Canada, not Greenland, and a citation other than Wiki might be better, but the main point stands. There was warming that occurred PRIOR to industrialization.

We humans have an innate desire to link effects back to causes (which is why I had fun with the "goats cause global cooling" idea). A lot of times those links are found to be false. I've no desire to go over the whole pro and con arguments again. I looked at a lot of info from a lot of sources and determined that I don't trust the "science" for a number of reasons. The whole issue is at least a two-parter anyway. 1. Do you believe? and 2. What are you going to do that will have a significant enough effect to make a difference?

What I am pointing out is that scientific measurements by those who believe have determined that China has about four times more impact than the U.S. on carbon emissions and even more on mercury emissions. I think there is even an article in Discover Magazine this month that cites measurements and wind patterns.

I am also pointing out that we have conveniently exported our dirty industries there so that we can play Miss Pristine Pure, and demand even greater compliance locally to the current "noble ideal" and make money at it. If we continue to play the game the way it is rigged - and was rigged from the beginning - we will be doing exactly squat to address the real problem.

You want to slow global warming? Don't buy solar cells, don't buy the latest high tech electronics, and push for China to go back a couple hundred years and avoid the technology that we told them would be good for them, and promised to buy (thank you Henry Kissinger).

The junk science and charlatan eco-friendly businesses that claim importance in saving us from global warming/climate change/giant snowstorms/tilting axis of the Earth wouldn't even stand up to the examination of a reasonably smart and un-brainwashed fifth-grader.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2011, 10:25 AM
 
28,803 posts, read 47,514,684 times
Reputation: 37905
I think research will show that Canada was cooling during the same time period Greenland was...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2011, 10:31 AM
 
14,780 posts, read 43,497,497 times
Reputation: 14621
I don't pretend to be a scientist, only a reader and observer. When it comes to anthropogenic global warming I'm not 100% convinced that it is the sole cause of what we see happening today. If anything I am more apt to believe that there are larger natural cycles at work behind the scenes (solar activity seems to be a strong hypothesis), and while human actions may contribute to the overall picture, they are not the driving force behind it. How much of the impact is human I don't know. Maybe it's 10% or maybe it's 25%, either way, I think being good environmental stewards is a positive thing. So, no Chicken Little the sky is not falling, but it wouldn't hurt to be a little more careful.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2011, 10:41 AM
 
Location: state of enlightenment
2,403 posts, read 5,225,072 times
Reputation: 2500
Industry (like Exxon/Mobile) is heavily funding the denialist propagandists like F#X News for example and their sock puppets endlessly regurgitate the lies and disinformation in forums and other outlets to confuse an ignorant public.


Global Warming Deniers
"WHO are the deniers? The network of global warming deniers includes corporate lobbyists, front groups and free market anti-government organizations that try to affect public opinion and policy on global warming. They work together to form an echo chamber of views that appear to be coming from a large, unrelated constituency. In reality, they sit on each other's boards, publish each other's writings, form coalitions, use the same scientists, lobby Congress, and spread identical arguments. They often opine on additional environmental issues including, repealing the Endangered Species Act, opening up the Arctic Refuge to oil drilling, promoting liquid coal, and bringing back the toxic pesticide DDT."

Global Warming is Real | Climate | Energy | Sustainability
"Admiral David Titley is Chief Oceanographer and Navigator of the United States Navy. A self-described “former climate skeptic,” Admiral Titley says the evidence has now convinced him that global warming is the “greatest challenge of the 21st century.”

Here he talks at the Pentagon on the significant issues of national and global security that will arise as the century plays out in the century of global warming."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2011, 12:30 PM
 
14,780 posts, read 43,497,497 times
Reputation: 14621
geos, outside of the fact that both of those links are rather odd choices for proving a point (most people steer clear of sites poorly written rife with spelling and grammatical errors), what they still don't address is the root discussion of what is causing global warming.

The one link mentions Rear Admiral Titley (though it mis-states his position and qualifications, they probably just breezed through his DOD bio online) and the interesting thing is that he never states that it is human actions that are causing global warming, he merely states that evidence indicates that the planet is warming and it is his job to develop tactics and strategies for how the Navy would deal with those potential changes.

I think most people would look at the data and say that yes the planet is warming. Where it diverges is the impact that the actions of man have on that warming. One camp would have us believe (and this is the one that draws all the attention) that the actions of man are solely responsible for the warming trend. Other groups of very valid scientists counter that with evidence and hypotheses pointing to more cyclic causes. The first group discredits the second at every turn even to the point of trying to block their work from being published. Of course, that first group are the same people who are pretty much shooting themselves in the foot with things like "Climategate".

One thing I can't escape in my mind is the sheer amount of money involved in what has become the business of man-made global warming. One of your links decries the investments of certain businesses in the "denier" camp. What it ignores is the billions in grant money and billions more in investments that are poured into the "believer" camp (Al Gore doesn't fly around with his PowerPoint slides talking about an inconvenient truth for the heck of it, he has made millions off global warming). Plain and simple climate science has become a lucrative business for many. It's not inconceivable that the people benefitting from it are influenced by the money.

As for me I believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I think there are natural cycles at work and those cycles are being influenced by mans actions, however, I do happen to think we have a rather small impact overall. Regardless we do need to understand what is happening. However, running out and buying Prius' and slapping solar panels on our roofs isn't going to change anything.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2011, 12:35 PM
 
7,372 posts, read 14,630,229 times
Reputation: 7045
Hard to tell if they are working. Even if we stopped everything on earth that emitted green house gasses the temperature would continue to rise for the next decade or so. I cant remember what the exact timeline was but i saw this on discovery channel or one of those information channels.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2011, 04:57 PM
 
28,803 posts, read 47,514,684 times
Reputation: 37905
Quote:
Originally Posted by skel1977 View Post
Hard to tell if they are working. Even if we stopped everything on earth that emitted green house gasses the temperature would continue to rise for the next decade or so. I cant remember what the exact timeline was but i saw this on discovery channel or one of those information channels.
If we stopped everything that emitted greenhouse gasses we'd all starve. No cows, no pigs, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2011, 06:16 PM
 
41,815 posts, read 50,811,595 times
Reputation: 17863
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post

One thing I can't escape in my mind is the sheer amount of money involved in what has become the business of man-made global warming.
Worldwide the number would be in the tens of trillions over a few years, we're talking about effects on every product in the economy under a cap and trade system. Part of the international solution includes transfers of wealth and technology to third world nations and even China wants coal tech from the US. It's monstrous grab for wealth and tech.

For example the Cap and trade plan put forth by Obama could have cost 2 trillion in 8 years.

Quote:
Obama climate plan could cost $2 trillion - Washington Times

At the meeting, Jason Furman, a top Obama staffer, estimated that the president’s cap-and-trade program could cost up to three times as much as the administration’s early estimate of $646 billion over eight years. A study of an earlier cap-and-trade bill co-sponsored by Mr. Obama when he was a senator estimated the cost could top $366 billion a year by 2015.
The money involved with the fossil fuel industry in this country is paltry amounts compared to what cap and trade will cost. You have to chuckle when someone is advocating for this because of the "big bad fossil fuel industry" when in the fact their solution will create even bigger and badder companies many of whom just make money with paper.
Quote:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aXRBOxU5KT5M
Masters says banks must be allowed to lead the way if a mandatory carbon-trading system is going to help save the planet at the lowest possible cost. And derivatives related to carbon must be part of the mix, she says. Derivatives are securities whose value is derived from the value of an underlying commodity -- in this case, CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

“This requires a massive redirection of capital,” Masters says. “You can’t have a successful climate policy without the heavy, heavy involvement of financial institutions.”
As a young London banker in the early 1990s, Masters was part of JPMorgan’s team developing ideas for transferring risk to third parties. She went on to manage credit risk for JPMorgan’s investment bank.



Among the credit derivatives that grew from the bank’s early efforts was the credit-default swap. A CDS is a contract that functions like insurance by protecting debt holders against default. In 2008, after U.S. home prices plunged, the cost of protection against subprime-mortgage bond defaults jumped. Insurer American International Group Inc., which had sold billions in CDSs, was forced into government ownership, roiling markets and helping trigger the worst global recession since the 1930s.

Last edited by thecoalman; 03-15-2011 at 06:27 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Nature

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top