|
|
|
Rift
Skeptic Friend
USA
333 Posts |
 Posted - 06/30/2001 : 06:13:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So control of these gasses
*seems* to me an idea that is not necessarily detrimental to the atmosphere.
I would hope that we could also do that without ruining the economy. Which seems to be a primary worry of those 'against' global warming, which, I admit, is a legit concern.
But I do feel we can solve this problem and that we will solve this problem. Does that sound like "apocalyptic rhetoric"? :P
|
 |
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2001 : 11:21:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I would hope that we could also do that without ruining the economy. Which seems to be a primary worry of those 'against' global warming, which, I admit, is a legit concern.
Yeah it is a legitimate concern. However, there are other instances where this has been brought out for not doing something and later it's been found to not increase costs, reduce costs or only slightly increase costs. Without some looking into the issue this really isn't a valid argument. (But I don't know any figures nor have I seen any, so....I'll wait.)
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
Lisa
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2001 : 11:25:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Man, I don't visit this thread because I don't visit the BA board, and here you guys are secretly talking about other stuff! No fair! 
TD, there's no big secrets here. @tomic generously gave us this folder to complain about issues on the other board. He's even patient when a topic tends to splat onto other folders.
On this board we get the occasional "you're all going to hell because you don't think like I do" troll, but you would not believe some of the nuts that find the BABB. They're capable of taking the most innocent debates (radiation tolerance, global warming, Mars exploration,) and turning it into a space alien/illumunati/government conspiracy. Good thing I'm already on blood pressure medication. Rift should probably go in for a check up.
Please continue to join the discussion about global warming! It's a interesting and complex issue, there's no reason it should be confined to one forum. I've learned more about it than I've ever been able to glean from our beloved mass media.
Lisa
Chaos...Confusion...Destruction...My Work Here Is Done |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2001 : 13:42:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Please continue to join the discussion about global warming! It's a interesting and complex issue, there's no reason it should be confined to one forum.
There was a wonderful ABC special by John Stossel last night, called "Tampering with Nature". It generated some controversey, that in the end made the ratings beat out "Millionaire". Everything from GM foods to Global Climate Change to human cloning. I'll try to find a link to a transcript or see if it is going to reair anytime soon. Some tidbits:
- over 17,000 scientists have signed a petition protesting the Kyoto Treaty http://www.sepp.org/pressrel/petition.html
- Plump and well fed biofoods protesters are delaying important technologies that can save many third world peoples by giving them food, which they don't have.
I highly recommend watching this to everybody here.
http://more.abcnews.go.com/onair/2020/stossel_010629_tamperingwithnature.html
------------
Gambatte kudasai! |
|
|
|
Zandermann
Skeptic Friend
USA
431 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2001 : 19:40:45 [Permalink]
|
another gem that you might have missed:
quote:
Darren
youve come to the wrong place dont bother arguing logic here because noone will believe you here. their all atheists and dont
belive nothin from the bible. i agree with you, any inteligent person that guves it any thought will relize that the earth is only a few thousand years old and it was created in 6 days. anyway its no use arguing here.
...also from that paragon of logical thinking and creative spelling, erwin.jennings
http://www.badastronomy.com/wwwboard/messages/5819.html, as a reply to Darin Warren's insightful contribution that the Earth is 10 000 years old.
|
|
|
|
James
SFN Regular
USA
754 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2001 : 00:13:08 [Permalink]
|
Talk about too little too late.
quote:
Darren
youve come to the wrong place dont bother arguing logic here because noone will believe you here.
We will, if you back up your claims with some proof.
Besides, Erwin wouldn't know logic if it bit him on the ass.
quote:
their all atheists and dont
belive nothin from the bible.
And this has to do with...??quote:
i agree with you, any inteligent person that guves it any thought will relize that the earth is only a few thousand years old and it was created in 6 days.
Guves? Relize? WTH?
And about that the intelligent remark...I must be dumb then, I don't believe in that BS.
quote:
http://www.badastronomy.com/wwwboard/messages/5819.html
"When nine hundred years old you reach, look as good you will not." -Master Yoda |
|
|
|
Rift
Skeptic Friend
USA
333 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2001 : 00:39:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
their all atheists and dont
belive nothin from the bible.
I'm glad he cleared that up, I'd surely hate to be confused with one of them there atheists that did belive somethin from the bible.
(Good grief, a redneck troll...)
|
|
|
|
Lisa
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2001 : 00:43:02 [Permalink]
|
Rubysue, can you work something new into your equation? Seems we're getting more trolls over on BA, but they're less sophisticated. At least P***r had some graphics (however clumsy) we could pick apart. The latest seem downright creepy. Did someone leave the door open while their cages were being cleaned?
I've been at work all afternoon. Spent the evening chasing down a rogue Yorkie. (Don't ask) Maybe tomorrow morning I'll feel brave enought to sneak a peek at BA.
Lisa
Chaos...Confusion...Destruction...My Work Here Is Done |
|
|
|
Rift
Skeptic Friend
USA
333 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2001 : 09:00:39 [Permalink]
|
Okay, I read an article on the ABC "Tampering With Nature" and I wish I would have seen it... (we probably ought to start a global warming folder under poltics or somewhere)
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010626/en/television-stossel_1.html
quote:
The special, slated to air on Friday, deals with the human impact on the environment, from geneticengineering to global warming, suggesting that mankind has ``tampered with nature'' for centuries and
that much of the outcome has been beneficial.
Okay, maybe I'm missing something... I'd agree that some of the outcome has been beneficial, but most?
This is ironic because I took my four year old neice to the library yesterday, and while she was look at kid's books I found this large book called "Vanished Wildlife" about recently extinct speices. It wasn't depressing in itself, it was very well done with beautiful illustrations, but the damn thing was thick, and was written in 1981. How many more pages would it need now, 20 years later? Nearly all the species were extinct because, directly or indirectly, of humans including the Stephen's Island Wren which was wiped out by the lighthouse cat. There is also a wonderful National Geographic article in this months issue about the Asiatic Lion. From a range that stretched from the atlantic to Indochina, it is now confined to a nature preserve in India consisting of 300(!) individuals.
Now before everyone jumps on me, let me say I'm for ANY alternative source of energy (including nuclear) and I think genetic engineered foods is going to get us out of a LOT of trouble, and think a lot of people are being needlessly paranoid. (The part ABC cut from the special shows how brainwashed kids are in school, he asked if solar power should be used they all raised their hands, he asked it nuclear power should be used, nobody raised their hands)
But to say most of the changes we have caused to the enviroment are beneficial???
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2001 : 11:51:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
But to say most of the changes we have caused to the enviroment are beneficial???
I believe that meant beneficial to humans. We live 25 years longer on average, and that kind of thing.
------------
Gambatte kudasai! |
|
|
|
Bozola
Skeptic Friend
USA
166 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2001 : 16:26:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I believe that meant beneficial to humans. We live 25 years longer on average, and that kind of thing.
That's life expectancy, not life span.
There is a difference.
Bozola
- Practicing skeet for the Rapture. |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2001 : 14:43:59 [Permalink]
|
Sorry it's taken so long. Kids on the weekend as I said, plus I return to find this topic taken up in another thread, so I'm on that one, too.
quote:
India and China being exempt from the Kyoto Treaty is certaintly "junky" and I'm not sure I was aware of that. Developing countries, it seems to me, would produce a greater amount of CO2 then developed ones, and you are talking about a sizable portion of the world's population with those two countries. I can see why you have a problem with that.
Actually, most of the third world is exempt. The four largest exempt nations are China, India, Brazil, and Mexico. Add 'em all up and it's nearly 80% of the world's population is exempt. And you're right; underdeveloped countries produce lots of CO2, though in different ways (lots of cookfires in those exempt countries, and they put out lots and lots of CO2).
But forget who is exempt for the moment. Instead, find out who has actually signed it yet. I ask this question sort of rhetorically in the other thread, but I'll give you the answer here: Only Romania has signed the treaty (actually, Sweden is close and may have done it recently). None of the other European countries clamoring for Bush to support the thing have ratified it. And by the way: it was rejected by the U.S. Senate back in 1977. Unanimously, I might add, meaning Republicans and Democrats. Bush is just telling the world what has already happened under the Clinton Administration. And where were Willie and Al for the last 3 years of their term? Not fighting for Kyoto.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would ask you show that, even if Antarctica is 'breaking up' (I assume you mean the ice sheets and not the continent itself):
1. It's not happened before naturally
2. It isn't natural now
3. It is a result of global warming
4. The global warming is a result of man's addition of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. And please add why we should believe this when many of the same
folks said back in the 70's that the same greenhouse gases would surely result in another ice age.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I meant the ice sheets, I noticed that later but I had already edited the damn thing twice :)
I can't, nor can anybody I expect, show any of those points. I would say it implies global warming, certainly it shows regional warming or else they wouldn't be melting. The european glaciers are all receeding too, as can be seen in turn of the century photographs. Since climatic changes are normally slow, and 100 years is 'fast' as far as climate is concerned, I'm sure you can see why I find this alarming. I'm not rushing around screaming like chicken little though, and I can't even say that it IS our fault that it is happening. All I can say is it is scary...
The articles I've read seem to suggest that if one crucial glacier or ice wall goes in the Antarctic, there may be a domino effect as millions of tons of snow and ice flow into the ocean. This is indeed a frightening scenario, but I don't believe the possiblity it may happen means it will happen.
quote:
It's sort of the point that no one can show that it's happening (though even I may dispute this). And the fact is that regional weather DOES vary greatly. Abnormality is the norm when it comes to the weather. I think it was Eisenhower who expressed dismay that fully half of American schoolchildren were below average; he needed a science advisor to tell him that that's okay. Same with the weather.
And regarding 100 years being a short time in terms of climate, I disagree. It's short geologically speaking, but not climatologically. The Medieval Warming Period was only a few hundred years; the Little Ice Age was shorter than that, and we just started coming out of it about 200 years ago.
I've still got lots to read on Antarctica, -but let me mention a few things I've found:
--------------------------------------------
First is a National Geographic Article by Hillary Mayell, December 13, 2000, which is called "Antarctic Ice Tongue Disintegrating." The article explains how this is unusual in its size. Then it says this:
"There is no evidence linking the demise of the Ninnis Glacier Tongue to warming in the region.
'The disintegration is likely to be the consequence of a natural progression of events that periodically occur in floating glacier tongues around the margin of the Antarctic Ice Sheet,' says Rob Massom, in a NASA report. 'What remains a mystery is why these breakouts occur.'
Massom, a polar research scientist with the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre at the University of Tasmania, Australia, was the first to spot the breakout while studying satellite images.
KEEPING A CLOSE EYE
In spite of their importance in assessing global warming and climate change, the current mass balances (the net gains or losses) of the Antarctic ice sheets are not known. And the advance and retreat of ice is extremely dynamic.
Before breaking off, the tongue of the Ninnis Glacier had lost about two-thirds of its area since 1913. However, scientists at the Alaska Climate Research Center report that the nearby Mertz Glacier tongue has advanced substantially over the same time period.
In March nearly two thirds of the Ross Ice Shelf broke away in several pieces, one of them covering an area of 3,900 square miles (10,000 square kilometers), according to the U.S. National Ice Center. In early May, three massive bergs with a combined length of around 194 miles (312 kilometers) broke off the Ronne Ice Shelf in the Weddell Sea.
Scientists are using historical data and satellite images that have been collected since the early 1970s to determine annual and decadal changes in the Antarctic coastline. Without these studies, the impact of global warming — or whether it's even happening — cannot be determined.Massom's study is one of the first to observe the disintegration of a glacier tongue virtually as it was happening. He plans to travel to area in 2002. In the meantime, he is monitoring the movements of the two large icebergs, which have taken off in different directions."
--------------------------------------------
Then theres this, from a March 1999 article by John Carlisle for the Conservative News Service (am I biased? a bit):
"Other scientists agree that it is unwise to look to glaciers for evidence of global warming. Keith Echelmeyer, a glaciologist at the University of Alaska's Geophysical Institute, says, 'To make a case that glaciers are retreating, and that the problem is global warming, is very hard to do... The physics are very complex. There is much more involved than just the climate response.' Echelmeyer points out that in Alaska there are large glaciers advancing in the very same areas where others are retreating.
Dr. Richard Alley of Pennsylvania State University agrees that the response of glaciers to global temperatures can be difficult to predict |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2001 : 14:52:02 [Permalink]
|
Trish, I almost forgot: when you mentioned Denver as a pollution sink, it made me think of the CO2 sinks I had mentioned previously. In this context, a CO2 'sink' is an area that consumes it, i.e., it's not pollution. The U.S. 'consumes' more CO2 than it produces. The same is not true of Europe.
And I know what you mean about the Denver pollution. I lived along the front range for a few years, including a year in Denver proper (Fort Collins and Colorado Springs were the other places; found the home I want in Estes Park as soon as someone gives me a million and a half dollars tax free).
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2001 : 14:59:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
it was rejected by the U.S. Senate back in 1977.
I assume you mean 1997? You typed 1977 in both threads, so I wasn't sure...
You can either create a new topic yourself (I'd prefer General Discussion, since this really shouldn't be a political topic, even though unfortunately it is more political that scientific), or you can just start posting to "The Bad Science of Religious Fanatics" topic, which became a global climate change topic in the end.
A new topic would be the best I guess, and leave it up to the readers to review posts from the other threads.
Or @tomic maybe can set up a topic and cut and paste some of the current replies?
------------
Gambatte kudasai! |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2001 : 15:04:26 [Permalink]
|
Sorry. You're right; it's 1997. Why make a mistake just once when it's so easy to compound it?
Ever get the feeling it's you, me, and Zman against the world here?
My kids still love me. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
