Oh, goody! A day off work, and a new Global Warming thread... what more could a redneck want?
This is better than a six-pack and a bug zapper.
First to the OP, the weather at one place during one time period is obviously not necessarily the average over a longer period of time. But I do have
to admit, this is a funny punctuation to the truly quasi-science that supports AGW and Cap& Trade.
Now, to the rest of the thread:
reply to post by rizla
On the other hand, Uncle Exxon is very proud of you...
Yeah, but Uncle Rothschild is not happy at all. See
this
thread, referring to
this article.
Apparently, environmentalism makes for interesting bedfellows as much as politics...
-------------------------------------------
reply to post by nixie_nox
Mars is hardly indicative of the entire solar system. Especially when its heating up can be contributed to volcanism and its orbit.
Yeah, those Martian volcanoes tend to give off heat, unlike the Earth-based ones under the Arctic Ocean.
The Arctic seabed is as explosive geologically as it is politically judging by the "fountains" of gas and molten lava that have been blasting
out of underwater volcanoes near the North Pole.
“Explosive volatile discharge has clearly been a widespread, and ongoing, process,” according to an international team that sent unmanned probes
to the strange fiery world beneath the Arctic ice.
They returned with images and data showing that red-hot magma has been rising from deep inside the earth and blown the tops off dozens of submarine
volcanoes, four kilometres below the ice. “Jets or fountains of material were probably blasted one, maybe even two, kilometres up into the water,”
says geophysicist Robert Sohn of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, who led the expedition.
Source:
www.canada.com...
I did a comparison a few AGW threads back and found a startling correlation between global temperature anomalies and undersea volcanic activity. It's
a shame we aren't on Mars, where it would mean something.
-----------------------------------------
reply to post by nixie_nox
still comparing apples and oranges. Unless they have had weather stations strewn across the solar system for the last several hundred years, no
one is in a position to decide what the temps are on another planet.
If we can't agree what is happening on our planet, we certainly can't decide what is happening on others that we haven't even stepped
on.
Well, actually, yes they can. Certain substances change in relation to temperature the same on other planets as well as on the Earth. I know it's
weird, but it's almost like the laws of physics apply to everywhere.
As for us not agreeing, I thought everyone who believed in AGW also believed there was no disagreement on it?
--------------------------------------------
reply to post by nixie_nox
Climatologists use the same science that everyone else uses. A lot of them are those people who study climatology on the side. They use the
same info as the geologists, the volcanologists, the archeologists, arborists, whomever.
But, I thought you said volcanoes were hot on Mars and substances melted and froze at different temperatures?
--------------------------------------
reply to post by nixie_nox
So between all the powers we have, we could destroy the planet 40 times over in a matter of hours. So why is it so hard to believe that 5
billion people and 150 years of industry can't cause GW?
I worked in a very large environmental lab. The stuff that is out there would absolutely boggle you. hence the reason you said we are destorying the
planet at mind bending rates. And we are.
OK, I can get serious with this post.
If you work in an environmental lab, surely you are aware of the true contaminents and the effects of various chemicals. Sulfur is a great example. My
well water contains a hefty amount of sulfur. People tell me it smells bad (although neither I nor my children can smell it at all, having grown up
with it), but unhealthy? No, it is perfectly healthy. Lime as well, while some people don't like drinking cloudy water, is perfectly healthy.
Introduce some bacteria, or some pharmaceuticals, and the water is still clear and tastes the same, but now it can be deadly.
The point is that just because to the untrained eye something
appears 'nasty', that does not make it dangerous. To many people today, smog
has been renamed 'carbon dioxide', when it is actually a mixture of sulfates and nitrates, with a little elemental carbon thrown in. CO2 on the
other hand, is colorless and odorless and
not harmful in doses less than 30 times the present amount. That's what fear and propaganda will do:
it will twist the perceptions of the public to foster belief in what is not exactly true.
And that is why I do not believe in AGW. Too much propaganda, too little science in the mix. If the facts are verified and certain, there is no need
to make them out to be more than what they are.
Look around your room. Every single item had to be manufactured. It had to be produced somewhere. It got shipped around 5 times. Every single
step from the harvesting of the raw materials to being shipped to your store to coming to your house requires energy and causes by
products.
Exactly correct, and this is why carbon credits (energy taxation) will not work. It will raise the price of
everything, from food to gasoline
to computers to houses to toilet paper.
We are in a recession. That means people don't have enough to pay for their needs as it is. How
badly do you want people to suffer? Already, every day in this country (which is the wealthiest on the planet at present) people are going hungry.
That doesn't mean they can't stop and get a hamburger on their wayhome from work. It means they have
nothing to eat.
I know this because at one time I
had nothing to eat for a full week. And in order to get
something to eat, I had to work on an empty
stomach at two jobs so I could get paid and get
something to eat. Have you ever gone hungry? Not late for dinner; I am talking about going to
work for a solid week with no food, no money in my pocket to buy food, not even a cold drink at the end of a hard day of physical labor. Thank God
above for public water fountains!
Until you go through something like this, do not try and tell me that I should be able to do without while you lobby to raise taxes to feather some
politician's pocket. I do not want to hear it.
--------------------------------------
reply to post by nixie_nox
I don't think that core samples are the only way to get data. The geological time record gives quite a bit of info too.
The ice core samples are a part of the geological time record. But you are correct that there are other clues. For instance, a layer of volcanic rock
tells us the air was probably quite warm from eruptions.
The trick is how to interpret the raw data. Every geological time check contains some assumptions, assumptions we must be very careful to verify. For
CO2 levels in ice cores, how much of the CO2 left in the miniature bubbles of atmosphere was released by the water in the process of cooling? How much
was absorbed by the water as it froze? How much can a bubble migrate through ice over time? We assume the answer to these questions is "none", but
in reality this is an assumption. The end results of the present interpretations may be accurate, but the may not be. Until we can verify every single
assumption at least to the level of inconsequence, we do not have the full picture. And without that full picture, it would appear to me to be
foolhardy to change the entire economic picture of the planet, to the detriment of every person who is trying to live in a financial quagmire, on a
'maybe'.
Especially when the weatherman has gotten my weather wrong the last 3 out of 7 days.
TheRedneck
[edit on 3/21/2009 by TheRedneck]