Global Warming Network News- AKA- The Polar Water Caps by chrisisall

Global warming should not be a partisan debate. The only opposition is the oilpublican branch of my own party. Damn it. Anyway, here's the upside, I think it will be interesting watching the global warming revolution unfold. As we pour Co2 into the atmosphere, we don't threaten life on earth, we feed it. The new evolutions will take hold rapidly, and ferociously. In south america there have been reports of trees growing 10, 15, 20 feet in a year. Old genes, dormant for tens of millions of years awakening to a feeding frenzy, an orgy of evolution. Man, of course, will be squashed like a bug in the process. But a wonder to behold. Bring on the arrogant ignorant human hubris. It's end times for the evolution set.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 2, 2006 11:14 PM

DT:
There ain't much life of Venus.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 3, 2006 6:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
It's end times for the evolution set.

We'll take over Mars before we let go of life as a species!
So Earth gets a little Jurassic for a while, I'm up for it!

T-Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 3, 2006 6:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Global warming has become like seeing a UFO.

You're obviously not taking into account the ones who seen a REAL UFO

Wait untill you've lived a few more years, sonny, the Earth is a-changing, and I'm aware of it.(If it looks like a duck...)

BTW, it has nothing to do with sock-puppet Bush, Evil Clinton, Dark Lord Cheney, or anyone else.
Earth changes climates according to her own schedule, and she votes Independent.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 3, 2006 8:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
DT:
There ain't much life on Venus.

You been there?
Where's your proof?
Got a link you'd care to share with the rest of us?

Didn't think so.

Chrisisall, Venusian, and proud of it!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 3, 2006 12:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
DT:
There ain't much life of Venus.

I saw a movie once that clearly indicated otherwise.

Global Warming. It's really an interesting topic when you get down to it. If I were to leave my current field I would be inclined to go into atmospheric physics, maybe I get into the Modtran community at AFRL. But I digress.

Unfortunately, the issue of global warming has been commandeered by political entities seeking to leverage the doomsday scenario. These are the advocates of the absurd “Precautionary Principle.” But if you filter out all the bullshit, it is really a pretty interesting topic.

There has been some really interesting work done that associates the rise and fall of civilizations with the occurrence of climatic global minimums. The Medieval Minimum which coincided with the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the advent of the European Dark Ages. The Sporer Minimum began with starvation and plague. Certainly global climatic minimums may have a serious negative impact on civilization. The opposite seems to be true of climatic maximums. The Roman Maximum coincided with the rice of Roman civilization. The Medieval Maximum coincided with the rise of European civilization. And the Modern Maximum coincides with the rise of Western Civilization. The climate waxes and wanes are we are carried along by it.

Maybe some Dr. Evil somewhere will invent a weather changing device which will be in essence a sophisticated heat beam that he calls a “laser.” Until then, though, we may be at the mercy of the climate. When this maximum ends, as history suggests that it will, it would be nice if we will have had spent this time learning how to survive a climatic minimum instead of bickering about the end of the world.

Because plagues and Dark Ages are bad.

Oh, he's so full of manure, that man! We could lay him in the dirt and grow another one just like him.
-- Ruby

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 3, 2006 5:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
When this maximum ends, as history suggests that it will, it would be nice if we will have had spent this time learning how to survive a climatic minimum instead of bickering about the end of the world.

Well, a voice of REASON on a thread like this!

THANK YOU!!!

Thermal Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 3, 2006 7:12 PM

Citizen,

Human beings will not survive a temperature increase to the degree of venus. Actually, trees plants, and insects fair quite well at 140 degrees, humans will die of heat exposure with sustained 120 or so. Now, sure, temperature varies world wide, but every china, africa, brazil and the southen US are wiped clean of humans, emissions will be pretty close to zero. Life in the amazon will be much better off without humans, even if it's 130 degrees.

Worse yet, when the water temperature approaches body temperature, human disease gain the ability to survive in the water supply. If you look at a water temperature map of the globe, and then cross it with an epidemic map, you see that the major problem in africa is not derived from native species of life, poverty or genetics, but from water temperature. Several large river systems with constant temperatures of 90-100 degrees. A small shift in global warming would do this to the major river systems of china, and to the lower mississippi river valley.

In short, live on earth, collectively, is at far less risk that humanity. Even if a million or two humans survive, they won't be producing much in the way of pollution.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 4, 2006 3:53 AM

Dreamtrove, Venus's surface temperature is 482°C.

The melting point of lead is 327.5°C, how can any living thing on Earth survive that heat?

Maybe with the use of technology, but we don't have any technology that can survive that heat for extended periods yet.

This is the data we currently have on temperature extremes of Earth life:

Group	°C	°F
Animals
Fish	38	100
Insects	45-50	113-122
Ostracods(crustaceans)	49-50	120-122
Plants
Vascular plants	45	113
Mosses	50	122
Eucaryotic microorganisms
Protozoa	56	133
Algae	55-60	131-140
Fungi	60-62	140-144
Procaryotes
Bacteria
Cyanobacteria	70-73	158-163
Other photosynthetic bacteria	70-73	158-163
Heterotrophic bacteria	90	194
Archaea
Methane-producing bacteria	110	230
Sulfur-dependent bacteria	115	239

If the Earth warmed up to Venus temperatures no known life on Earth would survive.
As Finn pointed out there could be life on Venus, though I doubt it. But this life would be in no way Earth-like.

The thing about greenhouse effects is they are self sustaining, what we're doing is perhaps kick starting and accelerating it, it won't stop once we're gone.

Recently I saw a program that indicated that pollution may also be slowing global warming at the same time as causing it, by reflecting sunlight. The program suggested if we just stopped polluting without doing anything else, like what would happen if the Human race died out, Global warming would actually increase.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 4, 2006 6:29 AM

Finn was joking, but certainly life could exist on Venus. We see examples of life on earth living and even thriving in very inhospitable conditions, such as the bacteria that live within deep ocean thermal vents. If this is the case on Venus it is unknown, and probably unlikely to be widespread, but possible.

Venus and Earth have very different atmospheres. By comparison the Venusian atmosphere is 97% carbon dioxide and 90 times denser then the Earth’s. It seems unlikely that Earth could replicate those conditions, even replacing carbon dioxide with water vapor. During the Mesozoic the global climate was much warmer then it is today and during the Paleozoic it was much warmer then that. If there was going to be a runaway greenhouse effect, it seems probable that temperatures will need to increase by an unrealistically large margin for anything like what we see on Venus to occur on Earth. Not that it couldn’t happen but, I think even under the most optimal conditions we would be looking at a geologic timeframe, not anything that would effect civilization as we know it.

The natural water supply has always been a vector for human born disease. Global warming will not cause this; it has always been the case, at least since the last Ice Age.

Oh, he's so full of manure, that man! We could lay him in the dirt and grow another one just like him.
-- Ruby

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 4, 2006 6:42 AM

The difference is that the warming in the past is believed to be part of natural sun and orbital cycles, not a greenhouse effect. Heat is symptom and consequence of the greenhouse effect, not a cause.

The carbon dioxide in Venus's atmosphere is one of the causes it's greenhouse effect. As we remove the Earths natural carbon dioxide scrubers and pump more particulate matter and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere we're actually exacerbating the natural cycle.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 4, 2006 7:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
The difference is that the warming in the past is believed to be part of natural sun and orbital cycles, not a greenhouse effect. Heat is symptom and consequence of the greenhouse effect, not a cause.

That’s not a difference; that’s a political argument. The same exact evidence that is used to assert a greenhouse cause of global warming today is used to assert a warm global climate during the Mesozoic and Paleozoic.

But that's really irrelevant. A runaway greenhouse effect is one in which rising temperatures liberate more greenhouse gases, such as water vapor from the oceans or carbon dioxide from porous rocks, which in turn result in increase concentrations of greenhouse gas and thereby increased temperature. If the very high assessed temperatures of the Paleozoic could not jumpstart such a runaway greenhouse effect, then it seems unlikely that current temperatures will.

Oh, he's so full of manure, that man! We could lay him in the dirt and grow another one just like him.
-- Ruby

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 4, 2006 8:16 AM

Actually Finn the only direct evidence for planetary temperatures and CO2 are from Ice cores and fossilized tree rings and they only stretch back 600,000 years.

The truth is the only data we have older than that is ONLY for Carbon Dioxide and not for temperature. We have no data for global temperatures older than 600,000 years, what we can do is guess based on geological evidence what the temperatures may have been. This is no way near as reliable though.

It is incorrect to say the exact same evidence is used to assert global warming and global climate during the Mesozoic and the Palaeozoic. Global Warming suggests high temperature during those periods, and the correlation between global average temperature and CO2 levels found in ice cores and the fossilised tree records support Global Warming.

But the Earth was a very different place during the Mesozoic and Palaeozoic eras. The CO2 levels were natural and kept in check by vast forests, forests that no longer exist, and what we do have is being cut down. Further more the CO2 levels in our atmosphere is not just natural, it is also from Human activity, meaning the warming is logically going to be faster and greater than that of the Palaeozoic and Mesozoic eras, because we have all of the causes of warming present then plus a few more, and we have fewer braking systems.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 4, 2006 8:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Actually Finn the only direct evidence for planetary temperatures and CO2 are from Ice cores and fossillized tree rings and they only stretch back 600,000 years.

The truth is the only data we have older than that is ONLY for Carbon Dioxide and not for temperature. We have no data for global temperatures older than 600,000 years, what we can do is guess based on geological evidence what the temperatures may have been. This is no way near as reliable though.

First, ice core samples and tree rings are not thermometers. These are proxy data from which temperature is inferred, not direct measurements of temperatures. There are no direct measurements of temperature beyond a few generations. However, there is measured proxy data for temperature that goes back many millions of years based on examination of paleosols and fossils. So we do have measurement well beyond 600,000 years. All this data carries with it considerable uncertainty, however.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
It is incorrect to say the exact same evidence is used to assert global warming and global climate during the Mesozoic and the Paleozoic. Global Warming suggests high temperature during those periods, and the correlation between global average temperature and CO2 levels found in ice cores and the fossilised tree records support Global Warming.

But the Earth was a very different place during the Mesozoic and Paleozoic eras. The CO2 levels were natural and kept in check by vast forests, forests that no longer exist, and what we do have is being cut down. Further more the CO2 levels in our atmosphere is not just natural, it is also from Human activity, meaning the warming is logically going to be faster and greater than that of the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras.

The greenhouse theory and concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide are used to assert global climatic temperature trends both during the Paleozoic and today. The greenhouse theory cause of the Modern Maximum is dependent upon correlation between increased atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature data. Similarly, the high temperatures during the Paleozoic are based on assessed concentrations of carbon dioxide and the greenhouse effect.

You cannot claim that the greenhouse theory works today, but not during the Paleozoic, and dismiss it with “the Earth was a different place” stuff. According to simulated data and measured data the concentrations of carbon dioxide was significantly higher, then it is today. Your assumption that vast forests were keeping carbon dioxide in check, may or not be true, but it certainly is not supported by the assessed Paleozoic carbon dioxide concentrations. And either the greenhouse theory works or it doesn’t. If there were significantly higher concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide during the Paleozoic, then the greenhouse theory says the temperature should have been much higher. If we don’t accept that, then we can’t argue that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide is causing increased temperature today based on the greenhouse theory.

Oh, he's so full of manure, that man! We could lay him in the dirt and grow another one just like him.
-- Ruby

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 4, 2006 9:20 AM

Personally, I don't see a big co2 or particulate difference between the man-made polution of today, and the volcanic activity plus the hundreds of millions of daily dinosaur farts of times past.

Raise your hand if 'Eeewwwue'.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 4, 2006 10:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Personally, I don't see a big co2 or particulate difference between the man-made polution of today, and the volcanic activity plus the hundreds of millions of daily dinosaur farts of times past.

If the Greenhouse theory is correct, then that would be true. There is evidence that the Phanerozoic climate was driven by noncarbon related mechanism, such as solar and cosmic ray activity, as citizen said. However, it’s difficult to argue for a greenhouse effect today, but not the Paleozoic. It is possible that carbon dioxide was kept in check by large forests, but that’s an assumption and somewhat of a circular argument, because we don’t really know how large the forests were in those days. We just assume they were vast, because the temperatures were high. In the end, very few solid conclusion can actually be drawn from all this.

My belief is that the temperature is probably due to the greenhouse effect, but that the temperature never gets high enough to jumpstart the so-called runaway greenhouse effect, like what we see on Venus. Anthropogenic effect is probably very small in the big picture. Ice core samples show regular and large spikes in the carbon dioxide concentration, and these spikes correlate well with large increases in mean global temperature, literally pulling the climate out of ice ages that last thousands of years. What is causing the carbon dioxide spikes is hard to say (cosmic ray flux?). Many things have been suggested, but this trend is not due to industrialization; this is a natural effect. And it is very large. So large that, in fact the current maximum almost disappears into the noise of the ice core temperature measurement. We are sitting on an 8000-10000 year optima, having come out of a 100,000 year stretch were the mean global temperature appears to have been around 6 degrees lower. Something is causing atmospheric carbon dioxide to rise and fall, and it very well could be cosmic and solar activity. If the last 400,000 years is any indication the current optima may end very soon (read: hundreds of years), and in an ironic twist, it is possible that the anthropogenic greenhouse gases produced by industrialization may not be enough to save the planet from an ice age that may last tens of thousands of years and completely erase the progress humans have made over the last 8000 years.

Stick that in the Kyoto Accord and eat it!

Oh, he's so full of manure, that man! We could lay him in the dirt and grow another one just like him.
-- Ruby

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 4, 2006 10:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Further more the CO2 levels in our atmosphere is not just natural, it is also from Human activity, meaning the warming is logically going to be faster and greater than that of the Palaeozoic and Mesozoic eras, because we have all of the causes of warming present then plus a few more, and we have fewer braking systems.

I agree it might be going at a faster rate because of us; it's not natural to be able to see global climactic change this severe within one's lifetime, imo.

But once upon a time, there were no trees, no braking systems, just a surface of molten and cooling crap spewing out mega-billions of tons of co2 and ash.
Once this slowed, however, the intellegent life that evolved here moved to Venus for continued warmth and soot

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 4, 2006 10:33 AM

This is somewhat off topic, but keeping in the spirit of light conversation. Have either of you played a PC game called Civilization IV? This along with Rome:Total War has become my favorite PC games, since none of the new WWII first person shooting games will run on my computer.

Anyway, CivIV is a strategy game in which you play one of several civilizations that compete for resources and land with other factions. You can play this game with several initial assumptions that define how the land masses are organized. There is an assumption for an ice age, in which only the tropical regions are easily habitable, and an assumption for an arid climate in which the tropics are most deserts. I’ve gotten hours of enjoyment simulating the rise of civilization in an ice age environment. The good land dwindles very quickly and competition for the few habitable places in the colder regions is intense. It’s just a game, but with a little imagination one can get a pretty good first order approximation of how civilization is affected by different climatic extrema.

Oh, he's so full of manure, that man! We could lay him in the dirt and grow another one just like him.
-- Ruby

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 4, 2006 12:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn Mac Cumhal:
First, ice core samples and tree rings are not thermometers.

I think it's fair to say I know that Finn, the point is there is data in the Ice cores and tree rings that has nothing to do with CO2 but does indicate higher temperatures. Data older than 600,000 years is only for CO2 levels.

Given the differing data sources we can be sure of the temperature variations over 600,000 years, with just CO2 data all we can tell reliably is that there was more Carbon Dioxide. If the greenhouse effect is true we can infer that temperatures were also high.

The Ice cores and tree rings support the Greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect supports the idea that since there was high CO2 the global temperature was probably high.

Quote:
There are no direct measurements of temperature beyond a few generations. However, there is measured proxy data for temperature that goes back many millions of years based on examination of paleosols and fossils.

Again this data is for CO2 levels only, which may infer temperature, but there’s no evidence independent of CO2 levels that goes back further than 600,000 years.

Quote:
You cannot claim that the greenhouse theory works today, but not during the Paleozoic, and dismiss it with “the Earth was a different place” stuff.

That's not what I'm saying Finn, that's your assertion of what I'm saying. I'm saying the threshold for a runaway greenhouse effect is lower now because of the reduction of the negative feedbacks that prevent it.

But why can't I dismiss it by saying the Earth was a different place? The only reliable data for temperature is that from the Ice Cores and the Tree rings because it comes from multiple sources, not just CO2 levels.
That shows that the global temperature now, along with the CO2 levels, is higher than during any period in the last 600,000 years. It is also increasing at a much greater than ever before.

Also looking at the graphs it appears to show that the Industrial Revolution occurred just as we were on the peak of one of these spikes. If that is correct then we should now be on a downward cycle, yet it's getting warm?

All these things lead me to believe the world is a very different place than it was before. But then I could just look out my window and see the houses and cars

.

Trees act as a negative feedback, keeping the greenhouse effect in check. Less Trees, less negative feedback. That doesn't mean that there will defiantly be lower CO2 levels with more Trees, it means the threshold for a run away greenhouse effect is higher.

Also there is evidence to support there being much more forest than today.

For a start the present levels of forest are unnaturally small because we've cut most of it down over the last few thousand years. It is reasonable to assume that the natural level of forestation then is no smaller than it is now. It's also reasonable to assume that no aggressive intelligent species were around to cut them down.

Then there’s Coal, that as I'm sure you know is the remains of ancient plant life.

Quote:
If there were significantly higher concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide during the Paleozoic, then the greenhouse theory says the temperature should have been much higher. If we don’t accept that, then we can’t argue that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide is causing increased temperature today based on the greenhouse theory.

I never disputed that.

Quote:
Have either of you played a PC game called Civilization IV? This along with Rome:Total War has become my favorite PC games, since none of the new WWII first person shooting games will run on my computer.

I've never played Civilisation IV, but I have played the earlier ones. I couldn't really get into them, but that was sometime ago, I've played some similar games that I did end up liking a lot, Empire Earth II is similar, but you can see the buildings as you add them to your cities. It's a lot like Civ in a lot of ways, with a bit of an Age of Empires game thrown in. I might give it another chance though, because what you mention sounds interesting. The only problem is the way I play RTS games means that they usually take all day...
I tried Rome, but it was never really my thing, I'm not that big on RTT's.
I can highly suggest Call of Duty 2 though, if you can afford and justify the upgrade its well worth it. The games great though it doesn't last long I was through it in a few hours, plus the British characterisations were atrocious.

"Got the Jerry rotter!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 4, 2006 1:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
That shows that the global temperature now, along with the CO2 levels, is higher than during any period in the last 600,000 years. It is also increasing at a much greater than ever before.

I don’t know what graph that you’re talking about, but the Vostok ice core samples clearly seem to indicate that the temperature was higher on several other occassions.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Also looking at the graphs it appears to show that the Industrial Revolution occurred just as we were on the peak of one of these spikes. If that is correct then we should now be on a downward cycle, yet it's getting warm?

Again, I don’t know what graphs you’re referring to but if you’re looking at a graph of recent mean global temperature, as one imagines you would have to be if you were pointing out something as specific as the Industrial Revolution, then you can’t usually just look at any peak and say that is the cusp of a cycle. There’s usually way too much variation. So I’m not sure where you’re going with this.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Trees act as a negative feedback, keeping the greenhouse effect in check. Less Trees, less negative feedback. That doesn't mean that there will defiantly be lower CO2 levels with more Trees, it means the threshold for a run away greenhouse effect is higher.

Measurements suggest that carbon dioxide levels may have been as high as 20 times current levels during the Phanerozoic. A Venusian greenhouse effect that occurs on the earth is unlikely to be the result of carbon dioxide, so trees may not provide that much feedback. The only conceivable way a runaway greenhouse effect could occur on this planet is if the temperature rose high enough to saturate the atmosphere with water vapor. If that didn’t happen during the Silurian, when carbon dioxide concentrations were at there highest measured and, according to the greenhouse effect, the temperature would have been very high, then how likely is it to happen any time soon? I wouldn’t think much.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I've never played Civilisation IV, but I have played the earlier ones. I couldn't really get into them, but that was sometime ago, I've played some similar games that I did end up liking a lot, Empire Earth II is similar, but you can see the buildings as you add them to your cities. It's a lot like Civ in a lot of ways, with a bit of an Age of Empires game thrown in. I might give it another chance though, because what you mention sounds interesting. The only problem is the way I play RTS games means that they usually take all day...
I tried Rome, but it was never really my thing, I'm not that big on RTT's.
I can highly suggest Call of Duty 2 though, if you can afford and justify the upgrade its well worth it. The games great though it doesn't last long I was through it in a few hours, plus the British characterisations were atrocious.

I played Call of Duty and Medal of Honor, but the more recent ones are way too much of a load on my computer. I’ve never played Empire Earth, but I did play Age of Empires, long ago. I like Rome a lot, but I also am really big into Roman history so I had ulterior motives. It had a lot of problems, crashes and really sluggish runtime and graphics issues, but I overlooked them.

Oh, he's so full of manure, that man! We could lay him in the dirt and grow another one just like him.
-- Ruby

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 4, 2006 4:38 PM

Citzen,

You missed the point. If humans heat the earth, they do so gradually. They would kill humans long before they would endanger plants and insects, temperaturewise. After having killed humans, humans would cease to polute, thus ending global warming.

Even if fringe humans survive, they will not polute, because it is the sheer number of humans that exist in combination with their completely irresponsible behavior that causes polution and thus global warming.

Personally, I'm more concered with running out of oil and having more stupid wars over it than the global warming effect, but all else being equal, we should use non-poluting fuel. No one takes into consideration that the local effect of polution is far more drastic than the global effect, and the cancers caused by benzpyrene and the brain damage caused by carbon monoxide are going to riddle all urban residents, so were I one, I'd be even more concerned.

I read an interesting analysis a couple of years back about the race riots in LA. Blacks and whites were suddenly at each others throats during the rodney king trial. The writer of the article proposed the radical theory that this was not about race, but about the intense rage caused by carbon monoxide poisoning. CO levels in LA are far higher than other places because of an air poacket created around the city by the ocean winds and the mountains.

Burning fossil fuels is really bad for humans, but it's not at all bad for the Earth. The Earth is quite happy with the development. It's ourselves we are extincting.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 5, 2006 1:35 AM

No Dreamtrove, I got your point, I'm saying it's not necessarily the case.

Read my post again, most of it is disputing your factual error that life on Earth could survive at Venus temperatures. This is plainly not the case and I knew I had to do more than just say you're wrong, because you would dispute it.

The last part is a hint that if we quick started a runaway greenhouse effect Humans disappearing wouldn't suddenly stop it, in fact one theory I've heard has said that it may worsen the effect, and that theory is backed up by some real world data.

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreamtrove:
I read an interesting analysis a couple of years back about the race riots in LA. Blacks and whites were suddenly at each others throats during the rodney king trial. The writer of the article proposed the radical theory that this was not about race, but about the intense rage caused by carbon monoxide poisoning. CO levels in LA are far higher than other places because of an air poacket created around the city by the ocean winds and the mountains.

I don't see where you're coming from with this, I mean so what?

Quote:
Burning fossil fuels is really bad for humans, but it's not at all bad for the Earth. The Earth is quite happy with the development. It's ourselves we are extincting.

Dreamtrove if Humans go so will a lot of other species. The fact is to kill off Humans would take a mass extinction possibly greater than the one that killed off the Dinosaurs, because of our ability to protect ourselves with technology and use our technology to adapt to a new environment far faster than most other forms of life.

So whatever way you cut it's not just us who are going to lose out, but even if we were that's enough. I don't want my grandkids to die because it's not cost effective to use non-polluting fuels.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 5, 2006 4:26 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Global warming has become like seeing a UFO.
You're obviously not taking into account the ones who seen a REAL UFO

Wait untill you've lived a few more years, sonny, the Earth is a-changing, and I'm aware of it.(If it looks like a duck...)

BTW, it has nothing to do with sock-puppet Bush, Evil Clinton, Dark Lord Cheney, or anyone else.
Earth changes climates according to her own schedule, and she votes Independent.

Chrisisall

Oh, I've SEEN a UFO before. And it was in broad day light too. But it wasn't a alien space ship. Too often folks interchange 'UFO' to mean exactly that...alien space craft.

As per the Earth, when has it ever NOT been changing ? That's the big, beautiful secret that we don't hear when it comes to our Enviro-friendly gang. The imagry of a timeless, unchanging , unspoiled and pristine world which is in complete harmony, or would be were it not for mankind, is a fairy tale. How do I know ? I study paleontology, for fun

This planet has changed flora and fauna more times than YoSaffBridge has had husbands!

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 5, 2006 5:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
As per the Earth, when has it ever NOT been changing ? That's the big, beautiful secret that we don't hear when it comes to our Enviro-friendly gang.

I posed the idea that warming was occurring with or without our help, and Finn seems to have backed me up, now you, AURaptor, also look to be in agreement...

I am very choked up...

There may be tears Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 5, 2006 10:35 AM

The thing is Chris, yeah the Earth warms and cools naturally, but it doesn't do it this quickly. If you look at the temperature and CO2 levels everything is normal for the last 400,000 years, then the industrial revolution takes place and weird sh*t abounds. The CO2 levels skyrocket faster than ever seen before, and if you look at the temperature graphs where they usually rise peak and fall we're actually now sitting on a high plateau. This is unprecedented and the only difference between now and the natural cycles is the industrial revolution.

This is a fact that the Enviro-Hating pollution-loving gang likes to cover up. They say “the Earths always changing” well not this fast it doesn’t.

But for AURaptors benefit:
Yes, pumping tons of greenhouse gases, carcinogens and other nasties into the atmosphere has no effect; really, it’s good for us, especially the 1% of the population getting rich off it. We aren’t in the middle of a Cancer epidemic, oh no, everything will be fine, it’s actually getting colder. Can you see the rainbow, oh and is that a pot of gold with your name on it?

While there's Oil to burn trying to keep the species alive is bad for business, so let’s kill us all, it'll probably happen after we're dead anyway, so someone else will have to deal with it and in the meantime we all have yachts!

Halleluiah!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 5, 2006 11:29 AM

NUCKLES87

Indeed, Earth isn't supposed to change this quickly. We got records you know ;). Scientific ones. And whats happening right now is not how it tends to happen in the natural order of things.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 5, 2006 11:29 AM

NUCKLES87

(post deleted)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 5, 2006 11:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
The thing is Chris, yeah the Earth warms and cools naturally, but it doesn't do it this quickly. This is a fact that the Enviro-Hating pollution-loving gang likes to cover up. They say “the Earths always changing” well not this fast it doesn’t.

My whole point is that the dumasses that say man is the sole cause of global warming, and the dumasses that say there IS no global warming (or, it's TOTALLY natural, what there is of it) need to see a middle ground, and, like Finn suggests, figure out ways to cope and maybe even survive (depending how cold it's gonna get after the 'liberation of h20' from the ice caps).

I have no doubt that man is speeding things up quite measurably (and the crap that ain't greenhouse-y certainly is not good for us either ( unless your ivory tower is above the polution).

At least we are all recognizing that there is a problem, and that's good, isn't it?

Moderator Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 5, 2006 12:36 PM

Firstly, wow, I had an overwhelming desire to look at this thread seconds before you made that post, then I surf off somewhere else and my email beeps.
Weird.

Anyway, most of that may have sounded a little vicious, wasn't meant for you, it was meant for AURaptor really. Someone who sounds like they believe there is no problem.

Someone who should have a brain who elects to turn it off and take the crap force fed to them by the arseholes that run the world.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 5, 2006 1:58 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
But for AURaptors benefit:
Yes, pumping tons of greenhouse gases, carcinogens and other nasties into the atmosphere has no effect; really, it’s good for us, especially the 1% of the population getting rich off it. We aren’t in the middle of a Cancer epidemic, oh no, everything will be fine, it’s actually getting colder. Can you see the rainbow, oh and is that a pot of gold with your name on it?

While there's Oil to burn trying to keep the species alive is bad for business, so let’s kill us all, it'll probably happen after we're dead anyway, so someone else will have to deal with it and in the meantime we all have yachts!

Halleluiah!

Volcanos pump out far more poisonous gasses and C02 than we humans have, and our air is still fine to breath. Well, it is for me. There's no need for chicken little cries or the Kyoto Treaty. ( the latter which did more to harm capitalism than to curb pollution ) Your comment about yachts is more telling than you realize. The enviromental movement is , primarily, anti wealth, and more intent on redistribution than saving the planet.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 5, 2006 2:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Your comment about yachts is more telling than you realize. The enviromental movement is , primarily, anti wealth, and more intent on redistribution than saving the planet.

Okay, back to disagreement.
The environmental movement is primarily (I believe) about saving the environment, and like any cause, is being enthuastically pushed as hard as it can be by it's supporters. If they have their way, forests and oceans will be spared the ravages they've been suffering, and those poor rich folk getting fat off of toxic waste dumping in the sea and de-regulation of protected land will see a noticable hit to their bottom line.

So, YEAH. It IS anti-wealth, when you look at it that way.

And why crab? Are you in danger of having to sell a yacht or two to keep your Italian villa while the plankton you're killing say bye-bye?

Please. We're all in this together.

Yacht-less Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 5, 2006 2:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Anyway, most of that may have sounded a little vicious, wasn't meant for you

No worries, I knew.

Some folks are all in a rush to get to 'Earth that Was', without even realizing it

.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 5, 2006 2:39 PM

Yes AU, as I guessed, no Pollution, no deaths in fifties London due to smog, no Cancer epidemic, lead in your water strengthens the heart, pour carcinogens on your cornflakes, they're good for you and don't cause cancer.

Sing with me:
Asthma isn't on the rise,
That's just lefty lies,
Cancer's just a fake,
It's all just a little half baked,

The air here is good, *cough* *splutter*
I don't even like wood,
Natives like it when you burn 'em,
'Cause now they all have toaster ovens,

Sit in you're garage,
And leave the engine on,
You won't die,
That's just lefty lies,

As usual AURaptor you're reconstituted response is as predictable and devoid of facts as ever.

Quote:
Your comment about yachts is more telling than you realize. The enviromental movement is , primarily, anti wealth, and more intent on redistribution than saving the planet.

Not really, most pollution is caused by people who do it because it's more cost effective to dump toxic crap than to dispose of it responsibly. But since you'd prefer to die than think stockholders will lose 0.1% of their dividend go ahead, just tell me when you’re going to do it, so I can sell tickets, there must after all be a profit in everything.

But yes, what craziness is this, suggesting that we should divert our attention away from the pure pursuit of money and toward preventing the extinction of the Human race for a change.

Crazy, where’s the profit in that?

Here's a bucket of sand, it's to replace the one you've currently got your head in, you'll prefer this one, full of nice non-polluting non-toxic Oil (a drop of crude makes birds stronger and healthier, right).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 5, 2006 2:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Here's a bucket of sand, it's to replace the one you've currently got your head in, you'll prefer this one, full of nice non-polluting non-toxic Oil (a drop of crude makes birds stronger and healthier, right).

Wow.
Anti-environmentalists sure do get your dander up.

Side Note; Citizen, have you ever seen 'On Deadly Ground'? The last ten minutes sums up perfectly how I feel about polluters (plus, lots of cool fight scenes

).

Chrisisall, with a pony tail

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 5, 2006 3:17 PM

Quote:
Anti-environmentalists sure do get your dander up.

Anti-environmentalists are one thing, pro polluters who believe a bit of benzine in the morning is a good part of a healthy diet are something else...

Quote:
Side Note; Citizen, have you ever seen 'On Deadly Ground'? The last ten minutes sums up perfectly how I feel about polluters (plus, lots of cool fight scenes).

I vaguely remember it, I did have to go off and find a little reminder. I did find this that made me chuckle, partly because its the complete opposite of the conversation between Adam Baldwin and Joss Whedon about Jayne:

Quote:
Jennings remains such a stock cartoon villain that one concludes that Caine was only hired after both Bluto and Snidely Whiplash were found to be busy on other projects.
...
Jennings pretty much proves to be the worst performance in Caine’s long and busy career
...
Director Seagal: "OK, Michael, you’re the Bad Guy. So act really, like, Evil here."
Caine: "But look, Steven. You know that, in my character’s mind, he’s not the bad guy. To him, he’s the hero, see. He believes totally in what he’s doing, and in his right to do it. In fact, to him, your character is the bad guy, not he."
Director Seagal, after staring at Caine for a very long time without changing expression: "OK, Michael, you’re the Bad Guy. So act really Evil here. Oh, and more Awe when he sees me enter the room."

http://www.jabootu.com/ondeadlyground.htm
Might be blaspheme, but it just made me laugh

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 5, 2006 3:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

Director Seagal, after staring at Caine for a very long time without changing expression: "OK, Michael, you’re the Bad Guy. So act really Evil here. Oh, and more Awe when he sees me enter the room."

LOL, that was great, thanks, I'd not read that before, but it rings so true.
Caine gave Segal the cartoon bad guy he wanted, and more

.
The movie is pure un-intentional funny, however, the pro-environment message at the end is still completly valid and spot-on. Actually chokes me up (no pun) for real.

Chrisisall, as always, Ex-CIA

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 6, 2006 7:18 PM

Quote:
Volcanos pump out far more poisonous gasses and C02 than we humans have, and our air is still fine to breath.

Auraptor, this is patently false. Volcanos did, millions of years ago, they certainly don't today, not even within several orders of magnitude.

This is not the flaw in Kyoto. The flaw in Kyoto is that China, which is currently about to become the world's greatest poluter, is exempt from the treaty. According to the document anyone who signs it can't say anything about China's environmental policies for 20 years. In 20 years, the US and Europe will be on alternative zero emmission fuel out of political and economic necessity, and China's billion people will be pumping out an estimated 2-4 times what Europe and the US combined is right now. Why would any reasonable environmentalist support such a position?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 7, 2006 7:41 AM