Atlantis Online
October 17, 2019, 06:31:09 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: FARMING FROM 6,000 YEARS AGO
http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=156622&command=displayContent&sourceNode=156618&contentPK=18789712&folderPk=87030
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

An Inconvenient Truth

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: An Inconvenient Truth  (Read 3379 times)
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #195 on: May 10, 2007, 08:21:21 am »

Unfortunately they haven't completed the stages yet. The history shows that next we will be regaled with descriptive genitalia insults, followed by more accusations of split personality syndrome and the whine "I didn't start this, so-and-so did, and I just have to defend myself" with an increase in vehemence.

This particular playground has turned into a litter box and the only hope left is that someone with maturity will come along with the scooper and clean it out.

Tread carefully, the next step will sure land in something squishy.

Not always Zaph - Sometimes you just give up and move along.  Whether you think it follows a pattern or not, the facts are themselves - self-evident.  Consider the circumstances without discounting the significance of truth (just because it fits a pattern you pre-determined):  The people who begin these types of assaults are always completely devoid of any relevent subject matter....  Take a look back and see for yourself - there is no topical discussion offered - only insult.  Probe around the forum and see if a pattern has been established and judge for yourself.  Extending beyond that, you - of all people, should understand the desire to keep the facts straight and not take crap lying down.

For my part, I'm done with it (as my previous post should clearly indicate).  Let's also take note that I have been trying to inspire people to discuss the paramount point of it all: WHAT TO DO ABOUT THE PROBLEM while being heckled from the cheap seats.  I contend that I have done rather well at staying on topic while having grenades lobbed over the wall at me.  Grin
« Last Edit: May 10, 2007, 08:25:34 am by 19Merlin69 » Report Spam   Logged

Knowledge is a gift to be given; stupidity, a communicable disease.
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #196 on: May 10, 2007, 08:29:01 am »

Here is a list that has been compiled by stop Global Warming (dot) com.  It should be commen sense to any "environmentalists", however, some of it seems to be counter-intuitive.  It should be worth a page of discussion if anyone actually cares.  Enjoy.

Take Action!

There are many things you can do in your daily life that can have an effect on your immediate surrounding, and on places as far away as Antarctica. Here is a list of things that you can do to make a difference.

There are many things you can do today to reduce your own adding to on this problem!

Tropical Tree Growth Slowed
Other big changes are being monitored in the tropics, too. Data on tree growth, tropical air temperatures and CO2 readings collected over 16 years indicate that a warming climate may cause the tropical forests to give off more carbon dioxide than they take up. This would upset the common belief that tropical forests are always a counterbalance to carbon, taking huge amounts out of the atmosphere. The study, by Deborah and David Clark of the La Selva Biological Station in Costa Rica, and Charles Keeling and Stephen Piper of the Scripps Institution, reports that rainforest trees grow much more slowly in warmer nighttime temperatures, which is a hallmark of climate change in the tropics.
Tropical Tree Charles Keeling

Landscaping Your Home for Energy Efficiency
In Winter, by maximizing solar heating while deflecting winds away from your home; and
in Summer by maximizing shading while funneling breezes toward your home. [Source]

Buy a Hybrid Car
The average driver could save 16,000 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $3,750 per year driving a hybrid.

Buy a Fuel Efficient Car
Getting a few extra miles per gallon makes a big difference. Save thousands of lbs. of carbon dioxide and a lot of money per year.

Carpool When You Can
Own a big vehicle? Carpooling with friends and co-workers saves fuel. Save 790 lbs. of carbon dioxide and hundreds of dollars per year.

Inflate Your Tires
Keep the tires on your car adequately inflated. Save 250 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $840 per year.

Change Your Air Filter
Check your car's air filter monthly. Save 800 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $130 per year.

Reduce Garbage
Buy products with less packaging and recycle paper, plastic and glass. Save 2,000 lbs. of carbon dioxide per year.
Composting helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing the number of trips trucks must make to the landfill as well as the amount of methane released by our landfills.

Use Recycled Paper
Make sure your printer paper is 100% post consumer recycled paper. Save 5 lbs. of carbon dioxide per ream of paper.

Buy Minimally Packaged Goods
Less packaging could reduce your garbage by about 10%. Save 1,200 pounds of carbon dioxide and $1,000 per year.

Unplug Un-used Electronics
Even when electronic devices are turned off, they use energy. Save over 1,000 lbs of carbon dioxide and $150 per year.

Plant a Tree
Trees provide a microclimate and sustained moisture for you. Trees suck up carbon dioxide and make clean air for us to breath. Save 2,000 lbs. of carbon dioxide per year.


Use Compact Fluorescent Bulbs
Replace 3 frequently used light bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs. Save 300 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $60 per year.

Fill the Dishwasher
Run your dishwasher only with a full load. Save 100 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $40 per year.

Adjust Your Thermostat
Move your heater thermostat down two degrees in winter and up two degrees in the summer. Save 2000 lbs of carbon dioxide and $98 per year.

Check Your Waterheater
Keep your water heater thermostat no higher than 120EF. Save 550 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $30 per year.

Change the AC Filter
Clean or replace dirty air conditioner filters as recommended. Save 350 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $150 per year.

Take Shorter Showers
Showers account for 2/3 of all water heating costs. Save 350 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $99 per year.

Install a Low-Flow Showerhead
Using less water in the shower means less energy to heat the water. Save 350 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $150.

Buy Products Locally
Buy locally and reduce the amount of energy required to drive your products to your store.

Buy Energy Certificates
Help spur the renewable energy market and cut global warming pollution by buying wind certificates and green tags.

Insulate Your Water Heater
Keep your water heater insulated could save 1,000 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $40 per year.

Replace Old Appliances
Inefficient appliances waste energy. Save hundreds of lbs. of carbon dioxide and hundreds of dollars per year.

Weatherize Your Home
Caulk and weather strip your doorways and windows. Save 1,700 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $274 per year.

Use a Push Mower
Use your muscles instead of fossil fuels and get some exercise. Save 80 lbs of carbon dioxide and x $ per year.

Put on a Sweater
Instead of turning up the heat in your home, wear more clothes Save 1,000 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $250 per year.

Insulate Your Home
Make sure your walls and ceilings are insulated. Save 2,000 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $245 per year.

Air Dry Your Clothes
Line-dry your clothes in the spring and summer instead of using the dryer. Save 700 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $75 per year.

Switch to a Tankless Water Heater
Your water will be heated as you use it rather than keeping a tank of hot water. Save 300 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $390 per year.

Switch to Double Pane Windows
Double pane windows keep more heat inside your home so you use less energy. Save 10,000 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $436 per year.

Buy Organic Food
The chemicals used in modern agriculture pollute the water supply, and require energy to produce.

Bring Cloth Bags to the Market
Using your own cloth bag instead of plastic or paper bags reduces waste and requires no additional energy.



Source: StopGlobalWarming.org

Take Action!

There are many simple things you can do in your daily life that can have an effect on your immediate surrounding, and on places as far away as Antarctica. Here is a list of few things that you can do to make a difference.

Use Compact Fluorescent Bulbs: Replace 3 frequently used light bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs. Save 300 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $60 per year.

Inflate Your Tires: Keep the tires on your car adequately inflated. Check them monthly. Save 250 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $840 per year.

Change Your Air Filter: Check your car's air filter monthly. Save 800 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $130 per year.

Fill the Dishwasher: Run your dishwasher only with a full load. Save 100 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $40 per year.

Use Recycled Paper: Make sure your printer paper is 100% post consumer recycled paper. Save 5 lbs. of carbon dioxide per ream of paper.

Adjust Your Thermostat: Move your heater thermostat down two degrees in winter and up two degrees in the summer. Save 2000 lbs of carbon dioxide and $98 per year.

Check Your Water Heater: Keep your water heater thermostat no higher than 120EF. Save 550 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $30 per year.

Change the AC Filter: Clean or replace dirty air conditioner filters as recommended. Save 350 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $150 per year.

Take Shorter Showers: Showers account for 2/3 of all water heating costs. Save 350 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $99 per year.

Install a Low-Flow Showerhead: Using less water in the shower means less energy to heat the water. Save 350 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $150.

Buy Products Locally: Buy locally and reduce the amount of energy required to drive your products to your store.

Buy Energy Certificates: Help spur the renewable energy market and cut global warming pollution by buying wind certificates and green tags.

Buy Minimally Packaged Goods: Less packaging could reduce your garbage by about 10%. Save 1,200 pounds of carbon dioxide and $1,000 per year.

Buy a Hybrid Car: The average driver could save 16,000 lbs. of CO2 and $3,750 per year driving a hybrid. (Note: E85 fuel, derived from corn, is available in most US states, but in ZERO New England states. See LiveGreenGoYellow.com for more info.)

Buy a Fuel Efficient Car: Getting a few extra miles per gallon makes a big difference. Save thousands of lbs. of CO2 and a lot of money per year.

Carpool When You Can: Own a big vehicle? Carpooling with friends and co-workers saves fuel. Save 790 lbs. of carbon dioxide and hundreds of dollars per year.

Reduce Garbage: Buy products with less packaging and recycle paper, plastic and glass. Save 1,000 lbs. of carbon dioxide per year.

Plant a Tree: Trees suck up carbon dioxide and make clean air for us to breath. Save 2,000 lbs. of carbon dioxide per year.

Insulate Your Water Heater: Keep your water heater insulated could save 1,000 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $40 per year.

Replace Old Appliances: Inefficient appliances waste energy. Save hundreds of lbs. of carbon dioxide and hundreds of dollars per year.

Weatherize Your Home: Caulk and weather strip your doorways and windows. Save 1,700 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $274 per year.

Use a Push Mower: Use your muscles instead of fossil fuels and get some exercise. Save 80 lbs of carbon dioxide and x $ per year.

Unplug Un-Used Electronics: Even when electronic devices are turned off, they use energy. Save over 1,000 lbs of carbon dioxide and $256 per year.

Put on a Sweater: Instead of turning up the heat in your home, wear more clothes Save 1,000 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $250 per year.

Insulate Your Home: Make sure your walls and ceilings are insulated. Save 2,000 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $245 per year.

Air Dry Your Clothes: Line-dry your clothes in the spring and summer instead of using the dryer. Save 700 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $75 per year.

Switch to a Tankless Water Heater: Your water will be heated as you use it rather than keeping a tank of hot water. Save x lbs. of carbon dioxide and $390 per year.

Switch to Double Pane Windows: Double pane windows keep more heat inside your home so you use less energy. Save 10,000 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $436 per year.

Buy Organic Food: The chemicals used in modern agriculture pollute the water supply, and require energy to produce.

Bring Cloth Bags to the Market: Using your own cloth bag instead of plastic or paper bags reduces waste and requires no additional energy.

Use the Canvas/Vinyl Bags Sold at the Market: At Hannaford, each bag costs $5.50; you get a $.05 credit each time you use them and they hold 3 plastic bags worth of groceries. It’s environmentally friendly and it’s easier to get all the groceries into the house!

http://www.globalwarming.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=147
www.stopglobalwarming.org
Report Spam   Logged

Knowledge is a gift to be given; stupidity, a communicable disease.
Jason
Administrator
Superhero Member
*****
Posts: 1164



« Reply #197 on: May 10, 2007, 01:47:19 pm »

It's really a shame how many people here can't seem to debate without either engaging in personal attacks or trying to pump up their assumed credentials, seemingly at the expense of their "opponent."

Assume what you wish.

First, take the personal attacks someplace else.

This is a staple defense for those who have nothing to offer other than attacks.  This forum is no different than the thousands of others that do not verify credentials.  Mine are available for the moderators to inspect if they choose (As I have done at Physorg, AA.org, Phys Review, Wiki and TalkOrigins). 

Second, unless someone is secretly a climatologist, there are no "experts" here.

Incorrect.  Climatologists make up only 30% of the current field of researchers working on the problem.  The remaining field is fashioned from the rest of the scientific ranks (i.e. theorists, physical modellers (physicists), geochemists, geologists, chemists, theorists, statisticians, analysts (of many sorts), oceanographers, astrophysicists, etc., etc.)

There is only the latest research, and we are all quite capable of finding it,  reading it and making our own educated judgments.  Stick to the facts, not personal opinions. You are entitled to your opinions, just not your own set of facts.

The "santitized for public consumption" media soundbites, public discloseures and press releases are available to the public - not the actual facts, research and data sets used to formulate the {current} theory.  In that light, how can anyone find fault with varying opinions?  Seems rather narrow-minded to assume that everyone must run off the cliff just because "most" of the lemmings are doing so.

Right now, the facts are, as follows:

The world is warming up, and scientists are 90% certain that human beings are responsible.  I would really like to move beyond that point to discussing practical solutions to the problem, however, I am aware that some people still don't want to accept responsibility, so by all means, keep going.

Gosh - I think I said the very same thing on May 5th.  Although, I do not need to stipulate acceptance of the theory to move to the next phase - hypothesizing solution.  Beyond that, it really isn't a matter of accepting responsibility though - at least not for me.  I'll grant you that there are a number of governments out there that really do not want to do anything about the pollution, but that does not extend to their citizens (including myself). 

Merlin, you, too, are welcome to characterize things anyway that you wish, but there are no experts here, not me, and certainly not you. You are not in not any position to deliver lectures to any of us on this material. There is only the material, and we are all welcome to read it. The scientific material that the press bases it's report on is easy to find, too, you are not the only one with access to it.

I suggest, from this point on that we stick to the facts and stay away from posturing.  If your whole position (and Metatron's, too, apparently) is that you know climatology better than the rest of us, and, are, therefore in a better position to lecture us on it, then continuing any part of this discussion is pointless. 


Quote
Take a look back and see for yourself - there is no topical discussion offered - only insult.


I haven't seen many insults offered in this forum.  And the only insults offered in this thread have actually been delivered from Metatron (towards me), and yourself and Proteus.  As I said, it would be appreciated if that type of behavior was continued elsewhere.  Thank you.
Report Spam   Logged
zaphod
Full Member
***
Posts: 40



« Reply #198 on: May 10, 2007, 07:53:13 pm »

I know where you're comin from Merl, I was referring to the tirade we were subjected to on the other forum. This subject is now 14 pages long, and I have yet to see enough individual, self-possessed, original thought to fill even one page. It's all cut and paste of someone elses analysis. When someone jumps in to either refute some or all the information posted, they get lambasted by the originator of the post as if they, themself, were the author of the article. It's absolutely amazing.

Yes, I do have a little inkling of trying to keep facts just that, FACTS, and there are times when "if they come at you with a knife, you come back with a gun" "if they beat one of yours up, you send one of theirs to the morgue" (I love that movie), but to take that information to make a slanderous personal attack on the participants is completely uncalled for.

I'm rambling and this is not on topic, sorry, had a bad couple of weeks.
Report Spam   Logged

"I don't know what anything "is", I only know what it seems to me at the moment" -  Robert Anton Wilson
zaphod
Full Member
***
Posts: 40



« Reply #199 on: May 10, 2007, 08:23:54 pm »

Landscaping Your Home for Energy Efficiency - Did it

Buy a Hybrid Car - can't do this, not big enough yet for what I gotta haul

Carpool When You Can - Just about always do

Inflate Your Tires - always

Change Your Air Filter - change it every three months whether it needs it or not.

Reduce Garbage - Not home long enough to generate too much, and 90% of that is recycled

Use Recycled Paper - when I can find it in a form that I require

Unplug Un-used Electronics - yep, do that

Plant a Tree - I plant one yearly, my property is just about a forest.


Use Compact Fluorescent Bulbs - It's the only ones I have, with the exception of a couple of night lights and the ceiling fans.

Fill the Dishwasher - don't own one, not enough dishes to wash for that.

Adjust Your Thermostat - set at 65 all winter and off come March.

Check Your Waterheater - sorry mine's set at 140, I like my showers hot.

Change the AC Filter - don't have an air conditioner, don't like them

Take Shorter Showers - mine last about 7 mins, is that short enough?

Install a Low-Flow Showerhead - Nope, I like a good pounding for my 7 mins.

Buy Products Locally - every time, my job make me travel too much to go any distance for daily stuff.

Buy Energy Certificates - never heard of these

Insulate Your Water Heater - yep, it has its nice soft blanket

Replace Old Appliances - oops, I say, if it ain't broke, keep using it.

Put on a Sweater - have to, winters here can be very taxing.

Insulate Your Home - tight and snug here

Air Dry Your Clothes - only on the nice days,


Switch to a Tankless Water Heater - not yet, that's a cost that will have to wait.

Switch to Double Pane Windows - double pane, argon gas filled, ultraviolet coating, got em.

Buy Organic Food - too pricey

Bring Cloth Bags to the Market - I just use a cardboard box that is kept in my car


Well, am I in the ball park at least?  Wink

Report Spam   Logged

"I don't know what anything "is", I only know what it seems to me at the moment" -  Robert Anton Wilson
zaphod
Full Member
***
Posts: 40



« Reply #200 on: May 10, 2007, 08:40:20 pm »

........side bar.........

Glad to see ya hanging out here Meta. Keep it real  Grin
Report Spam   Logged

"I don't know what anything "is", I only know what it seems to me at the moment" -  Robert Anton Wilson
Jason
Administrator
Superhero Member
*****
Posts: 1164



« Reply #201 on: May 10, 2007, 09:35:19 pm »

I know where you're comin from Merl, I was referring to the tirade we were subjected to on the other forum. This subject is now 14 pages long, and I have yet to see enough individual, self-possessed, original thought to fill even one page. It's all cut and paste of someone elses analysis. When someone jumps in to either refute some or all the information posted, they get lambasted by the originator of the post as if they, themself, were the author of the article. It's absolutely amazing.

Yes, I do have a little inkling of trying to keep facts just that, FACTS, and there are times when "if they come at you with a knife, you come back with a gun" "if they beat one of yours up, you send one of theirs to the morgue" (I love that movie), but to take that information to make a slanderous personal attack on the participants is completely uncalled for.

I'm rambling and this is not on topic, sorry, had a bad couple of weeks.

You're entitled to your opinion, too, Zaphod, but, from my point of view, all I have seen you do in this thread is complain about it. If you think the thread should be something more substantial, feel free to introduce what your version of a "good post" is.

As for cutting and pasting other people's material, I don't know what your gripe with that is.  Merlin has cut and pasted items here, too. I hope your gripe isn't only relegated to those who take the opposite point of view to his.  And as for anyone feeling obligated to introducing an "original thought" here, that one has me baffled as well. Scientific facts are scientific facts.  Are we supposed to feel obligated to come up with our own version of the whys and ways of global warming in order to participate here, in your eyes? If so, that, to me, is what would be absolutely amazing.  There really isn't much debate at all in the scientific community that global warming is perpetuated by man anymore, that's a debate from ten years ago.  Some people will never be convinced, but that's okay, some people will never be convinced of evolution either. 

Not having all the answers about global warming should not be confused with having none of the answers.  Inconsistencies found in a theory do not, in themselves, form a counter-theory.

Finally, all things considered, I'd like to reiterate that the debate taking place here has been civil for the most part, without any of the juvenile behavior you seem to suggest is taking place.  If it doesn't quite measure up to your quality of conversation, my advice would be to not read it.
Report Spam   Logged
zaphod
Full Member
***
Posts: 40



« Reply #202 on: May 10, 2007, 11:24:43 pm »

Hey there Jason,

I think I may not have made myself exactly clear (it happens from time to time). Let me try again.

I haven't put my two cents worth into this thread for one very good reason, I don't know the FACTS of the causes or fixative measures of "global warming". Personally, from what I have read from a multitude of sources and, no, I am not going to list them, I feel that this is all just a natural cyclical event. Yes, mankind MAY have something to do with with it, but only to the extent of PERHAPS causing an alteration in the parameters in which it would have naturally ocurred anyway. I could be completely wrong, but I won't discredit either side of the issue just because it doesn't mesh with my view.

So, how can we fix it? I don't have the slightest damn idea. Why don't we just completely remove the human race from the face of the earth to another planet and compare the results when, in the next few thousand years, it happens again. Good idea?? NO of course it isn't. Niether is putting the complete blame on the populus.

My remarks were'nt really meant to be complaining about this thread as a whole, my reason for buttin my nose in it was due to two things: 2 weeks of living in hell, and the introduction of venomously laden remarks that were neither appropriate nor necessary because it had all been said over a year ago in the other forum. I probably should have just shot my computer and gone to bed, but I was in a foul mood and not completely rational.

On to your next point.

My idea of a good post is one that presents a particular side of an issue using the contributors own thoughts, ideas and experimentation. Naturally, those thoughts and ideas have to have an originating source, making previously researched material by others a necessity. But, to recite only those sources that agree with same is not only just regurgitation, it does an injustice to the individual doing it. The whole "what if" is eradicated and replaced with "it only is". Talk about stagnation! Another aspect of a good post to me is one that is not laden with personal attacks. Yeah, I know that sometimes emotions run on the high side of incredulity, and saying something like "how dense can you possibly be!" or "shut the f*** up, you're wrong" is not the kind of attacks I'm talking about. I think you know the type and I don't need to go into it.

As for c & p, I don't have a major hangup on the usage of it, but lets put it within reason, why c & p page after page, a link to the material with a short synopsis of what the poster want to impart is great (this harkens back to original thought). It doesn't make a lick of difference who does it either.

No, you are obviously not OBLIGATED to do anything in my eyes, what I was trying to get across was that if a poster has some research that supliments their thoughts, wouldn't it be more interesting to hear "why" the poster thinks that particular material is correct instead of just sticking it in and saying "here's proof! deal with that!" To my view, all they have done is shown why the original author of the material thinks that way. While the subject may be enhanced with those additions, I don't really see how it furthers the discussion on one side or the other. It's like saying "I believe this to be true, not because I have researched this or that and made the following conclusions, but because this guy did, and he says so". Well, the author of the material is not participating in the debate, the poster is. Wouldn't it make sense for the poster to present their own reasons as to the whys and wherefores? Maybe I'm being too critical.

quote: Inconsistencies found in a theory do not, in themselves, form a counter-theory. unquote

But they could. Those same inconsistencies don't necessarily negate the original theory either.

Like I said earlier, I was referring only to the crap that was started on the last page or two, I agree with you that up to that point it was civil, and I was enjoying reading this topic. I can assure you, that my "quality of conversation" may surprise you.

It's gettin on to bedtime, goodnight.
Report Spam   Logged

"I don't know what anything "is", I only know what it seems to me at the moment" -  Robert Anton Wilson
Caleb
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4333



« Reply #203 on: May 12, 2007, 06:45:27 am »

On a side note, I am just baffled as to why so many people who are admittedly not experts on this subject are automatically resistant to the idea that human beings are causing global warming.

Is it mankind's natural prediliction to escape the blame or is it that just too many people have been getting their science from people like Rush Limbaugh (who, are, incidentally, parroting a lot of misninformation)?

The fossil fuel industry is the most greedy, pollution-laden industry on the planet.  Common sense alone should tell you that they bear the responsibility for a lot of this, and they are the ones with the most to lose should people beging to change their ways.
Report Spam   Logged
Brandon
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2235



« Reply #204 on: May 14, 2007, 10:44:58 am »

Climate study: Eastern U.S. 'going to get a lot hotter'

POSTED: 4:13 p.m. EDT, May 11, 2007

Story Highlights

• Computer model predicts summer temperatures in the eastern U.S. will rise
• Study: In 2080 the eastern U.S. is in for daily summer highs in the low to mid 90s
• Study gets mixed reviews from other climate scientists
• Climatologist criticizes the study





By 2080, east coast residents are in for daily summer highs regularly in the low to mid 90s, a new NASA study found.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Future eastern United States summers look much hotter than originally predicted with daily highs about 10 degrees warmer than in recent years by the mid-2080s, a new NASA study says.

Previous and widely used global warming computer estimates predict too many rainy days, the study says. Because drier weather is hotter, they underestimate how warm it will be east of the Mississippi River, said atmospheric scientists Barry Lynn and Leonard Druyan of Columbia University and NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

"Unless we take some strong action to curtail carbon dioxide emissions, it's going to get a lot hotter," said Lynn, now a scientist at Hebrew University of Jerusalem. "It's going to be a lot more dangerous for people who are not in the best of health."

The study got mixed reviews from other climate scientists, in part because the eastern United States has recently been wetter and cooler than forecast.

Instead of daily summer highs in the 1990s that averaged in the low to mid 80s Fahrenheit, the eastern United States is in for daily summer highs regularly in the low to mid 90s, the study found. The study only looked at the eastern United States because that was the focus of the funding by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Lynn said.

And that's just the eastern United States as a whole. For individual cities, the future looks even hotter.

In the 2080s, the average summer high will probably be 102 degrees in Jacksonville, 100 degrees in Memphis, 96 degrees in Atlanta, and 91 degrees in Chicago and Washington, according to the study published in the April edition of the peer-reviewed journal Climate and posted on the NASA Web site Thursday.

But every now and then a summer will be drier than normal and that means even hotter days, Lynn said. So when Lynn's computer models spit out simulated results for July 2085 the forecast temperatures sizzled past uncomfortable into painful. The study showed a map where the average high in the southeast neared 115 and pushed 100 in the northeast. Even Canada flirted with the low to mid 90s.

Many politicians and climate skeptics have criticized computer models as erring on the side of predicting temperatures that are too hot and outcomes that are too apocalyptic with global warming. But Druyan said the problem is most computer models, especially when compared to their predictions of past observations, underestimate how bad global warming is. That's because they see too many rainy days, which tends to cool temperatures off, he said.

There is an established link between rainy and cooler weather and hot and drier weather, said Kevin Trenberth, climate analysis chief at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Rainy days means more clouds blocking the sun and more solar heat used to evaporate water, Druyan said.

"I'm sorry for the bad news," Druyan said. "It gets worse everywhere."

Trenberth said the link between dryness and heat works, but he is a little troubled by the computer modeling done by Lynn and Druyan and points out that recently the eastern United States has been wetter and cooler than expected.

A top U.S. climate modeler, Jerry Mahlman, criticized the study as not matching models up correctly and "just sort of whistling in the dark a little bit."

But Andrew Weaver of the University of Victoria, editor of the journal Climate but not of this study, praised the paper, saying "it makes perfect sense."

He said it shows yet another "positive feedback" in global warming, where one aspect of climate change makes something else worse and it works like a loop.

"The more we start to understand of the science, the more positive feedbacks we start to find," Weaver said.

Weaver said looking at the map of a hotter eastern United States he can think of one thing: "I like living in Canada."

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/05/11/hot.future.ap/index.html
« Last Edit: May 14, 2007, 10:47:02 am by Brandon » Report Spam   Logged
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #205 on: May 14, 2007, 08:00:44 pm »

It bothers me that Zaphod is taking crap just because she is showing signs of rational thought.  I think it would be easier if I were to just stay in the physics categories.  Toodles.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2007, 08:50:12 pm by 19Merlin69 » Report Spam   Logged

Knowledge is a gift to be given; stupidity, a communicable disease.
Jason
Administrator
Superhero Member
*****
Posts: 1164



« Reply #206 on: May 15, 2007, 02:08:56 am »

I didn't know that Zaphod was a "she."

Anyway, I don't see Zaphod as "taking crap" in any shape or form.  Zaph made a few points, to which I responded, civilly. I really have a few issues with what some people seem to consider "rational thought."  The conversation with Zaphod dealt with his/her opinions on the way that the thread was going, we didn't get into the pros and cons of human beings causing global warming, so Zaph's opinons weren't even being discussed, nor was he or she taking any crap about them.
Report Spam   Logged
Wanderer
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 73



« Reply #207 on: May 16, 2007, 12:56:13 pm »

The topic has become a touchstone for all sorts of input from various individuals around the world it seems.  In the 1970s it was predicted that by all studies we were definitely headed for another worldwide glacial era.  We know the earth has gone through many upheavals and climate changes quite severe throughout its history with no input from humans.  The only reason people are adjatated about all the hoopla is simply because we are here.  If humankind had not arisen on this planet the changes would occur nonetheless as they always have.  It's only because we have a vested interest in survival that we revel in this foreboding.

It is quite likely that a space object will collide with the planet before it becomes hot in 2080 yet there is no global alarm and less than a dozen individuals scan the heavens seeking earthbound trajectory objects.  It simply is not a cause celeb yet would have far more serious consequences.

Perhaps there is some racial imprint sparking this alarm due to past catastrophies in the human record that "feels right" to many people who jump on the warming bandwagon.  The truth is that there is no consences on the current debate any more than there was as to what the expected rainfall was going to be by Great Plains farmers in 1947.

It's quite easy to accept and inch of substance and quite another to accept a mile of innuendo.  Until very recently, historicly, we didn't even have a global network of technically modern instruments to record weather-related events.  Global "weather stations" had mercury bulb thermometers and rain gauges and were manned by lonely individuals stuck in far flung outposts.  What was the lowest temperature in Siberia in 1919?  What was the highest in the Gobi in 1310?  How many hurricanes occurred of the eastern North American coast in 26 BC?  Exactly how much rainfall was there in the Amazon area 260,120 years ago?  What was the cause and reason for the demise of the 500-year mini ice age in Europe that ended with the Rennaissance?

Each generation with their accumulated technology thinks they are THE hottest thing going. That's true for today or 1899, 1620 and so on.  Then the next generation comes along and buries much of the previous human misconcepcions that seemed so valid they couldn't be false.  After all, science speculated such so they must be true!  Scientists once agreed that traveling in a railroad coach at 30 MPH would result in all air being sucked out causing a vacuum and the death of riders.  More recently scientists theorized that the 1st nuclear explosion might incinerate the entire world's atmosphere killing everyone!

And regardless of whether the warming concept is fact or supposition just who is going to do what to completely modify every nation on the planet's way of living?  The United Nations has little influence on world governing affairs for the most part, so how is anyone to expect a yet to exist global governing entity to make inroads in unagreed upon measures to reduce warming with no prioritization universally agreed upon?

Do we all move close to work so we drive less.  Do we devise catalyic attachments for both ends of bovines that belch and fart objectionable gasses?  Do we stop purchasing $650 million in Christmas decorations annually from China who pollutes greviously in their and other manufacture?  Just who is going to influence them to stop using coal for fuel?  Do we put India on notice that they have far too many human beings exhaling noxious gasses? Do we allow diseased and starving people's lives in underdeveloped nations to be extinguished for some fuzyy but lofty goal? Do we cap of the world's volcanoes which have wrought more atmospheric pollution than probably any other source in historic or prehistoric times. 

Who is to have the power to decide what the priorities are and how to impliment and enforce them?  This is where it begins to smell like 3 day old fish.  It goes back to money and power as it always has.  There is money to be made and power to be built by the whole scenario.  Moreover, how much is the average citizen expected to bear in wallet?

Each generation has stepped forth eager and motivated, ready to take on the inventive challenges of human development with an eye to the past and some trebidation of the unknown future.  But with this in mind we are now being conditioned to fear the future as though we are positively in for a bleak and devestating Mad Max existence based on a bunch of squints running climatic scenarios on Windows yet.

In the 1950s and 60 we were conditioned to fear the BOMB and the inevitable nuclear conflagration that was bound to unfold.  Now we are giving creedance to every founded or unfounded theory projecting 75 years ahead reagrding temperature fluctuations.

Where ever you are your local meteroligists fail to accurately predict the high and low temperature within 5 degrees for 10 days running with all of todays technology and you are in good conscience attempting to make me believe that the can predict what is surely going to occur at the end of this century on a global basis.
Report Spam   Logged
Brandon
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2235



« Reply #208 on: May 17, 2007, 01:29:09 pm »



Study: Southern Ocean saturated with CO2

The Southern Ocean around Antarctica is so loaded with carbon dioxide that it can barely absorb any more, scientists reported Thursday.

Story Highlights• Southern Ocean around Antarctica loaded with carbon dioxide
• Human activity is the main culprit, according to researchers
• Southern Ocean is one of the world's biggest reservoirs of carbon
• Research indicates it has been saturated with CO2 since the 1980s
Adjust font size:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- The Southern Ocean around Antarctica is so loaded with carbon dioxide that it can barely absorb any more, so more of the gas will stay in the atmosphere to warm up the planet, scientists reported Thursday.

Human activity is the main culprit, said researcher Corinne Le Quere, who called the finding very alarming.

The phenomenon wasn't expected to be apparent for decades, Le Quere said in a telephone interview from the University of East Anglia in Britain.

"We thought we would be able to detect these only the second half of this century, say 2050 or so," she said. But data from 1981 through 2004 show the sink is already full of carbon dioxide. "So I find this really quite alarming."

The Southern Ocean is one of the world's biggest reservoirs of carbon, known as a carbon sink. When carbon is in a sink -- whether it's an ocean or a forest, both of which can lock up carbon dioxide -- it stays out of the atmosphere and does not contribute to global warming.

The new research, published in the latest edition of the journal Science, indicates that the Southern Ocean has been saturated with carbon dioxide at least since the 1980s.

This is significant because the Southern Ocean accounts for 15 percent of the global carbon sink, Le Quere said.

Increased winds over the last half-century are to blame for the change, Le Quere said. These winds blend the carbon dioxide throughout the Southern Ocean, mixing the naturally occurring carbon that usually stays deep down with the human-caused carbon.

When natural carbon is brought up to the surface by the winds, it is harder for the Southern Ocean to accommodate more human-generated carbon, which comes from factories, coal-fired power plants and petroleum-powered motor vehicle exhaust.

The winds themselves are caused by two separate human factors.

First, the human-spawned ozone depletion in the upper atmosphere over the Southern Ocean has created large changes in temperature throughout the atmosphere, Le Quere said.

Second, the uneven nature of global warming has produced higher temperatures in the northern parts of the world than in the south, which has also made the winds accelerate in the Southern Ocean.

"Since the beginning of the industrial revolution the world's oceans have absorbed about a quarter of the 500 gigatons of carbon emitted into the atmosphere by humans," Chris Rapley of the British Antarctic Survey said in a statement.

"The possibility that in a warmer world the Southern Ocean -- the strongest ocean sink -- is weakening is a cause for concern," Rapley said.

Another sign of warming in the Antarctic was reported Tuesday by NASA, which found vast areas of snow melted on the southern continent in 2005 in a process that may accelerate invisible melting deep beneath the surface. (Full story)

Copyright 2007 Reuters. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/05/17/climate.ocean.reut/index.html
Report Spam   Logged
Allison
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4489



« Reply #209 on: June 01, 2007, 01:28:25 am »

Bush urges 15 nations to set global emissions goal
POSTED: 12:30 p.m. EDT, May 31, 2007

Story Highlights
• President calls for meeting of top emitters of greenhouse gases
• Global warming to be addressed at summit in Germany next week
• Critic says U.S. has "do-nothing" policy on global warming

 
 
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush, seeking to blunt international criticism of the U.S. record on climate change, on Thursday urged 15 major nations to agree by the end of next year on a global target for reducing greenhouse gases.

Bush called for the first in a series of meetings to begin this fall, bringing together countries identified as major emitters of greenhouse gases blamed for global warming. The list would include the United States, China, India and major European countries. After setting a goal, the nations would be free to develop their own strategies to meet the target.

The president outlined his proposal in a speech ahead of next week's summit in Germany of leading industrialized nations, where global warming is to be a major topic and Bush will be on the spot.

The United States has refused to ratify the landmark 1997 Kyoto Protocol requiring industrialized countries to reduce greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2012. Developing countries, including China and India, were exempted from that first round of cuts. Bush rejected the Kyoto approach, as well as the latest German proposal for what happens after 2012.

"The United States takes this issue seriously," Bush said. "The new initiative I'm outlining today will contribute to the important dialogue that will take place in Germany next week."

Environmental groups were quick to criticize Bush's plan.
Friends of the Earth president Brent Blackwelder called the proposal "a complete charade. It is an attempt to make the Bush administration look like it takes global warming seriously without actually doing anything to curb emissions."

National Environmental Trust president Philip Clapp agreed.
"This is a transparent effort to divert attention from the president's refusal to accept any emissions reductions proposals at next week's G-8 summit," Clapp said. "After sitting out talks on global warming for years, the Bush administration doesn't have very much credibility with other governments on the issue. "

And Daniel J. Weiss, climate strategy director for the liberal Center for American Progress, said the Bush administration has a "do-nothing" policy on global warming despite U.S. allies' best efforts to spur U.S. reductions.

Along with his call for a global emissions goal, Bush urged other nations to eliminate tariffs on clean energy technologies.

Germany, which holds the European Union and Group of Eight presidencies, is proposing a so-called "2-degree" target, whereby global temperatures would be allowed to increase no more than 2 degrees Celsius -- the equivalent of 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit -- before being brought back down. Practically, experts have said, that means a global reduction in emissions of 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

Instead, Bush called for nations to hold a series of meetings, beginning this fall, to set a global emissions goal. Each nation then would have to decide on how to achieve the goal, White House officials said.

"The United States will work with other nations to establish a new framework for greenhouse gas emissions for when the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012," the president said.

"So my proposal is this: By the end of next year, America and other nations will set a long-term global goal for reducing greenhouse gases. To develop this goal, the United States will convene a series of meetings of nations that produce the most greenhouse gases, including nations with rapidly growing economies like India and China.

"Each country would establish midterm management targets and programs that reflect their own mix of energy sources and future energy needs," he said. "In the course of the next 18 months, our nations will bring together industry leaders from different sectors of our economies, such as power generation, and alternative fuels and transportation."

James Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, rejected charges that the U.S. was dragging its feet in the fight against climate change.

"This is actually accelerating it," he said. "If we wanted to put things off further, you'd have annual meetings at the U.N. for the next five years. If you want to accelerate it, we do a lot of groundwork in between the U.N. meetings so we can bring the work product to the U.N. meetings."

The U.S. last year actually experienced a drop in emissions of carbon dioxide, the heat-trapping gas most blamed for global warming. The 1.3 percent decline from 2005, the first drop in 11 years, was due to a mild winter followed by a cool summer, along with other factors ranging from greater industrial efficiency to increased capacity of nuclear power plants.

Carbon dioxide is produced from burning fossil fuels, including natural gas and coal, which are used widely to produce electricity to heat homes in winter and run air conditioners in summer.

While Bush announced his new proposal, the administration registered its opposition to a number of approaches to combat global warming. Specifically, the White House said it does not support a global carbon-trading program allowing countries to buy and sell carbon credits to meet limits on carbon dioxide levels. The White House also expressed opposition to energy efficiency targets advocated by the EU, arguing that a standard applicable in one country does not fit another.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/31/bush.climate.ap/index.html

Report Spam   Logged
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy