Members Lucky Posted July 24, 2011 Members Posted July 24, 2011 Global warming? Chicago yesterday had a record 6.91 inches of rain, larger than the cock size of the average resident. Temperatures soared across the nation, with Minneapolis recently showing a heat index of 116. Power outages in New York and elsewhere added to the misery. San Diego remained mercifully temperate at 73 degrees. So, sure, it's a weather report, but is it also a harbinger of things to come? We are at the mercy of the gods here, unless we take significant steps to reduce our carbon footprint. Cities across the nation did report a significant drop in electricity usage when a popular website closed for 8 hours for server maintenance. But that was a one-time thing, so unless other websites close too, we could easily run out of power. (Cam4 gets an exception!) (I did watch the Yankee game yesterday and noticed hordes of shirtless young men in the bleachers. That was the place to be, or at the gay beach!) Quote
Members RA1 Posted July 24, 2011 Members Posted July 24, 2011 How can a poor, ordinary citizen know who or what to believe? We have one group of "scientists" saying that both hot and cold weather are the result of global warming who also say it is because of our carbon "footprint". Then we have another group who says it is only a normal cycle and we don't have enough evidence to make a statistically valid statement. Then we have another group who says the sun is entering a "cool" solar cycle and we will have definite cooling in both winter and summer over the next several years, at least. One person I don't believe is Al Gore. He has way too much invested in carbon footprints and global warming to be making anything other than self serving commentary. Without a doubt, reducing the "human" footprint, i.e. reducing the population, could take a lot of strain off Mother Earth. However, I am NOT in favor of war, famine, pestilence or disease as possible means to that end. Birth control or being gay without children or having small families anyone? Best regards, RA1 Quote
Guest gcursor Posted July 25, 2011 Posted July 25, 2011 We can't get our politicians to unite and pass a budget or raise the debt ceiling. I'm pretty sure that they don't think they have the time to think about "global warming". Of course, people will REALLY start to notice when some of the "freak" weather patterns start happening with alarming regularity. THEN politicians will decide that maybe they should do something to reverse the trend but the damage will already be done. All I can think that will happen at that time are tornadoes and floods ravaging the country while the politicians huddle in their big mansions sitting in front of their bundles of money wondering how they will get out of this predicament. Quote
Guest Conway Posted July 25, 2011 Posted July 25, 2011 We can't get our politicians to unite and pass a budget or raise the debt ceiling. I'm pretty sure that they don't think they have the time to think about "global warming". Of course, people will REALLY start to notice when some of the "freak" weather patterns start happening with alarming regularity. THEN politicians will decide that maybe they should do something to reverse the trend but the damage will already be done. All I can think that will happen at that time are tornadoes and floods ravaging the country while the politicians huddle in their big mansions sitting in front of their bundles of money wondering how they will get out of this predicament. It's not a question s to whether global warming exists or it doesn't. It does. You can follow warming and cooling trends throughout the earth's history. The question is: is this induced by man or is it part of a natural cycle. I believe its the latter and that there is nothing that we, as offspring of the cooling cycle, can or should try to do to stop it. Dinosaurs faced exinction and someday, so will we. Quote
Guest Allessio77 Posted July 25, 2011 Posted July 25, 2011 We indeed have 2 groups of scientists saying different things, but Group One is 90% of environmental scientists and Group Two is 10%!! That's about as much consensus as we get on ANY issue including whether the earth is flat or round. And if Group One is correct, the stakes are extreme (the planet and all life is in peril) , if Group Two is correct, the only cost is the transfer to non-carbon sources of energy (which we should do anyhow for National Security and other reasons). Quote
Members JKane Posted July 25, 2011 Members Posted July 25, 2011 How can a poor, ordinary citizen know who or what to believe? We have one group of "scientists" saying that both hot and cold weather are the result of global warming who also say it is because of our carbon "footprint". Then we have another group... You can believe the VAST majority of scientists and every scientific organization you've ever heard of. Or, on simple principal--with clearly illustrated cause these last couple weeks--you could simply believe the OPPOSITE of what FOX NEWS tells you to believe. Talk about vested interests and lopsided reporting of the 1 in 100 scientists who may mildly disagree with some small aspect of global warming. There is FAR more CO2 in the air that in the history of our planet and it clearly has long term repercussions. Even if it didn't, a system to de-incentivise otherwise polluting practices by making people pay the TRUE COSTS of them instead of SUBSIDIZING THEM is simply good public policy. And "Global Warming" isn't about a simple, predictable increase in temperature short-term. It is about MORE ENERGY being put into weather systems which accounts for more and more severe storms and other extremes, high and low. It's a dirt simple pattern to see, for people not being intentionally obtuse. Quote
Members MsGuy Posted July 25, 2011 Members Posted July 25, 2011 There is FAR more CO2 in the air that in the history of our planet and it clearly has long term repercussions. Pre-photosythesis, almost all the oxygen in the atmosphere was in the form of CO2. Since then the ratio of the atmospheric gases has varied all over the place. If I recall right, the CO2 component in the Creteceous was a good bit higher than it is now. Of course, that was when dinosaurs were wandering the fern jungles of Antarctica, so maybe that's not such an encouraging factoid. Quote
Members JKane Posted July 26, 2011 Members Posted July 26, 2011 Pre-photosythesis, almost all the oxygen in the atmosphere was in the form of CO2. Since then the ratio of the atmospheric gases has varied all over the place. If I recall right, the CO2 component in the Creteceous was a good bit higher than it is now. Of course, that was when dinosaurs were wandering the fern jungles of Antarctica, so maybe that's not such an encouraging factoid. You are correct, I meant human history, as levels are revealed in ice cores. Exactly the kind of Scientific clarification that flat-earthers at Fox would jump on as controversy and disagreement casting 'serious doubt' on the main point (even though we both agree on it). Quote
Guest gcursor Posted July 26, 2011 Posted July 26, 2011 Okay...for the members of the forum who are having trouble following the technical discussion that is on this thread (I know I was), I have come up with a GRAPHIC to help illustrate global warming... You are correct, I meant human history, as levels are revealed in ice cores. Exactly the kind of Scientific clarification that flat-earthers at Fox would jump on as controversy and disagreement casting 'serious doubt' on the main point (even though we both agree on it). Quote
Guest gcursor Posted July 28, 2011 Posted July 28, 2011 Well now I understand MUCH better after that comic by JKane..thanks JKane!! Gcursor Quote
