or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Another setback for Teh Global Warming™
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Another setback for Teh Global Warming™ - Page 3

post #81 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post


New

Accumulating excessive wealth



The Great Vatican Bank Mystery

Paul Marcinkus

Anyone got a kleenex? The tears, they roll...
post #82 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post



The Great Vatican Bank Mystery

Paul Marcinkus

Anyone got a kleenex? The tears, they roll...


They're going to be selling indulgences...scratch that, I meant carbon credits.

I wonder if they've calculated the carbon footprint of that whole burning bush thing yet?
Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Communist plot we have ever had to face? - Jack D. Ripper
Reply
Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Communist plot we have ever had to face? - Jack D. Ripper
Reply
post #83 of 333
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

Um...if it happens in a lab it happens globally... otherwise, what would be the point of doing science if scientists weren't able to take data and make larger scale predictions accurately...

That is incredibly dumb. There are so many more variables in the natural environment..thousands of them...and those are the just the ones we know about. You have to be kidding. And gee...have you noticed that "large scale predictions" are almost always...uh...wrong?

Quote:


in other words, you are wrong, get over it. the properties of carbon dioxide don't suddenly change when you are outside of a laboratory setting...

No, the properties of the gas do not. That much is certain. But the effect it has on the natural environment could be quite different.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #84 of 333
In other words, science is bunk.

Unless it supports my opinion.

From Saturday Night Live from years ago:

"How conveeeeeeeenient."

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #85 of 333
Top 10 and Worst 10: a comparison of the 56 top CO2 emitting nations (Climate Change Performance Index 2007/08)

10 Best Rated Countries:

1) Sweden
2) Germany
3) Iceland
4) Mexico
5) India
6) Hungary
7) United Kingdom
8) Brazil
9) Switzerland
10) Argentina

10 Worst Rated Countries:

47) Ukrain
48) Kazakhstan
49) Malaysia
50) Russia
51) Korea, Rep.
52) Luxenbourg
53) Canada
54) Australia
55) United States
56) Saudi Arabia

Top 10 emitters and their share of global CO2 emissions:

1) USA (21.44%)
2) China (18.80%)
3) Russia (5.69%)
4) Japan (4.47%)
5) India (4.23%)
6) Germany (3.00%)
7) Canada (2.02%)
8) United Kingdom (1.95%)
9) Italy (1.67%)
10) Korea, Rep. (1.65%)

...

Bush: America Is In The Lead On Climate Change


post #86 of 333
Yep. At 21.44%, America sure is leading the change in the environment.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #87 of 333
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

In other words, science is bunk.

Unless it supports my opinion.

From Saturday Night Live from years ago:

"How conveeeeeeeenient."

Strawman. Science is not bunk. But science is also not always exact, especially when it makes long range predictions. I'm also surprised that you and others here honestly disagree about lab conditions being different than global conditions wrt C02.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #88 of 333
Didn't realize I said anything about lab conditions.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #89 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Strawman. Science is not bunk. But science is also not always exact, especially when it makes long range predictions. I'm also surprised that you and others here honestly disagree about lab conditions being different than global conditions wrt C02.

Nitrogen 78.0842%
Oxygen 20.9463%
Argon 0.93422%
Carbon dioxide\t 0.03811% (less than two centuries ago it was ~ 0.0280%)
Water vapor ~ 1%
Other\t 0.002%

Earth's atmosphere

Nope, no science there!

Carbon dioxide

Nope, no science there!

Carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere

Nope, no science there!

[CENTER][/CENTER]

Nope, no science there!

[CENTER][/CENTER]

Nope, no science there!

Greenhouse effect

Nope, no science there!

Greenhouse gas

Nope, no science there!

[CENTER][/CENTER]

Nope, no science there!

[CENTER][/CENTER]

Nope, no science there!

Global climate model (aka general circulation model or GCM)

Nope, no science there!

[CENTER][/CENTER]

Nope, no science there!

[CENTER][/CENTER]

Nope, no science there!

[CENTER][/CENTER]

Nope, no science there!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #90 of 333
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Nitrogen 78.0842%
Oxygen 20.9463%
Argon 0.93422%
Carbon dioxide\t 0.03811% (less than two centuries ago it was ~ 0.0280%)
Water vapor ~ 1%
Other\t 0.002%

Earth's atmosphere

Nope, no science there!

Carbon dioxide

Nope, no science there!

Carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere

Nope, no science there!

[CENTER][/CENTER]

Nope, no science there!

[CENTER][/CENTER]

Nope, no science there!

Greenhouse effect

Nope, no science there!

Greenhouse gas

Nope, no science there!

[CENTER][/CENTER]

Nope, no science there!

[CENTER][/CENTER]

Nope, no science there!

Global climate model (aka general circulation model)

Nope, no science there!

[CENTER][/CENTER]

Nope, no science there!

[CENTER][/CENTER]

Nope, no science there!


Wow...impressive! Too bad I wasn't arguing that C02 levels have increased.

The last one is an excellent scary-looking graph based on the questionable notion that greenhouse gases cause Teh Global Warming, which of course has actually not occurred since about 1998 anyway.

Peace out.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #91 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Wow...impressive! Too bad I wasn't arguing that C02 levels have increased.

The last one is an excellent scary-looking graph based on the questionable notion that greenhouse gases cause Teh Global Warming™, which of course has actually not occurred since about 1998 anyway.

Peace out.

Usually, 30-year averages are used to see long term trends, not 10-year averages, it is glaringly apparent that you don't even have a basic understanding of science or the scientific method!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #92 of 333
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Usually, 30-year averages are used to see long term trends, not 10-year averages, it is glaringly apparent that you don't even have a basic understanding of science or the scientific method!

And you have no understanding of pure irony. Do you actually think we can make judgements about our planet's overall climate in 30 years time. Or even 100?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #93 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

And you have no understanding of pure irony. Do you actually think we can make judgements about our planet's overall climate in 30 years time. Or even 100?

Within the rather large error bars of the 2007 IPCC, yes of course. Not a single GCM shows Earth cooling, and there are dozens of these scientifically based models.

Oh and I've added a couple of figures above, but I'll repeat one of them here, a very simplified pictoral verson of what GCM's using science and the scientific method simulate.

[CENTER][/CENTER]

¿Comprende?
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #94 of 333
If only there were a virus that targeted stupidity, then, perhaps, the world would be a better place...

(I sometimes think that it would be cool to be an expert in infectious diseases and genetic engineering: I would bio-engineer a series of viruses that would all-but wipe out the human population of the earth -- it's a dream I have...)
post #95 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denton View Post

(I sometimes think that it would be cool to be an expert in infectious diseases and genetic engineering: I would bio-engineer a series of viruses that would all-but wipe out the human population of the earth -- it's a dream I have...)

I've already seen the movie, it's not that great...

Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Communist plot we have ever had to face? - Jack D. Ripper
Reply
Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Communist plot we have ever had to face? - Jack D. Ripper
Reply
post #96 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denton View Post

If only there were a virus that targeted stupidity, then, perhaps, the world would be a better place...

(I sometimes think that it would be cool to be an expert in infectious diseases and genetic engineering: I would bio-engineer a series of viruses that would all-but wipe out the human population of the earth -- it's a dream I have...)



Sewer, Gas & Electric: The Public Works Trilogy

Quote:
Synopsis:

The year is 2023. High above the canyons of Manhattan, a crew of human and android steelworkers is approaching the halfway point in the construction of a new Tower of Babel. The Tower is the brainchild of billionaire Harry Gant, who is building it as a monument to humanitys power to dream. Meanwhile, in the streets and tunnels below, a darker game is afoot: a Wall Street takeover artist has been murdered, and Gants ex-wife, Joan Fine, has been hired to find out why. Accompanying her is philosopher-novelist Ayn Rand, resurrected from the dead by computer and bottled in a hurricane lamp to serve as Joans unwilling assistant. While Rand vainly attempts to tutor her in the virtue of selfishness, Joan discovers that the murder is the key to a much larger mystery, one in which millions of lives may hang in the balance.

The world of Sewer, Gas & Electric includes such characters as eco-terrorist Philo Dufresne, an environmentally conscious pirate who stalks the East Coast shipping lanes in a pink-and-green submarine designed by Howard Hughes; Philos daughter Seraphina, who lives in the walls of the New York Public Library; newspaper publisher Lexa Thatcher, whose Volkswagen Beetle is possessed by the spirit of Abbey Hoffman; Kite Edmonds, a one-armed, 181-year-old Civil War veteran who joins Joan and Ayn in their quest for the truth; and Meisterbrau, a mutant great white shark running loose in the sewers beneath Times Squareall of whom, and many more besides, are caught up in a vast conspiracy involving Walt Disney, J. Edgar Hoover, and a mob of homicidal robots. The story also has lemurs in it.

Very entertaining dystopian world novel. A little dated, but fun read. And yes, a virus is a main part of the story...but would be giving too much of it away here.
post #97 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post


Quote:
The story also has lemurs in it.

post #98 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post



Sewer, Gas & Electric: The Public Works Trilogy



Very entertaining dystopian world novel. A little dated, but fun read. And yes, a virus is a main part of the story...but would be giving too much of it away here.

Holy crap! I'm totally reading that book!
Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Communist plot we have ever had to face? - Jack D. Ripper
Reply
Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Communist plot we have ever had to face? - Jack D. Ripper
Reply
post #99 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bancho View Post

I've already seen the movie, it's not that great...


12 Monkeys? I agree.

JMS's Jeremiah is a pretty good post-apocalyptic story (though it can be a bit slow at times -- and it was canceled after two seasons, so there really isn't any wrap-up on the arc).
post #100 of 333


I am reading J. G. Ballard's 1962 novel "The Drowned World" right now.

Quote:
The Drowned World opens within the conventions of a hard SF novel, as the catastrophe responsible for the apocalypse is explained scientifically – solar radiation has caused the polar ice-caps to melt and worldwide temperature to soar, leaving the cities of northern Europe and America submerged in beautiful and haunting tropical lagoons. Yet Ballard’s novel is thematically more complex than is immediately apparent.

Ballard uses the post-apocalyptic world of the story to mirror the collective unconscious desires of the main characters. A theme throughout Ballard’s writing is the idea that human beings construct their surroundings to reflect their unconscious drives. In The Drowned World, however, a natural catastrophe causes the real world to transform itself into a dream landscape, causing the central characters to regress mentally.

Why this hasn't been picked up as a film is beyond me. It is the "Heart of Darkness" of climate change and the effects on human consciousness.

The next book on the shelf will be "The Sheep Look Up" by John Brunner



Quote:
With the rise of a corporation-sponsored government, pollution levels in big cities have reached extreme levels and most people's health has been affected in some way. Continuing the style used in Stand on Zanzibar, there is a multi-strand narrative and many characters in the book never meet each other; some characters appear in one or two vignettes only.

Similarly, instead of chapters, the book is broken up into sections which range from thirty words in length to several pages. The character of Austin Train in The Sheep Look Up serves a similar purpose to Xavier Conroy in The Jagged Orbit or to Chad Mulligan in Stand on Zanzibar: He is an academic who, despite predicting and interpreting social change, has become disillusioned by the failure of society to listen. This character is used both to drive the plot and to explain back-story to the reader.

I finished his "Stand on Zanzibar" last week, another awesome book. Two great visionaries, these authors.
post #101 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Yep. At 21.44%, America sure is leading the change in the environment.

It's a crude awakening, one of many for this fucktard president.
post #102 of 333
Blind date with disaster

Quote:
We are constantly warned by scientists that our planet is in big trouble, so why can't we change direction? David Suzuki, one of the world's leading ecologists, on how humans have lost the vital skill of foresight

Today, we have all the amplified foresight conferred by scientists, computers, engineers and telecommunications, and for more than 40 years, leading scientists have been looking ahead and warning us that humanity is heading along a dangerous and unsustainable path, while there are benefits and opportunities in moving along a different direction. For example, in 1992, a remarkable document called World Scientists' Warning to Humanity was signed by more than 1,500 senior scientists, including more than half of all Nobel prizewinners alive at that time.

Here is some of what the document said:

Quote:
"Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course. Human activities inflict harsh and often irreversible damage on the environment and critical resources. If not checked, many of our current practices put at serious risk the future we wish for human society . . . and may so alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know. Fundamental changes are urgent if we are to avoid the collision our present course will bring about."

The document goes on to list the critical areas of the atmosphere, water resources, oceans, soil, forests, species extinction, and overpopulation. Then the words grow even more urgent:
Quote:
"No more than one or a few decades remain before the chance to avert the threats we now confront will be lost and the prospects for humanity immeasurably diminished. . .

A great change in our stewardship of the Earth and life on it is required if vast human misery is to be avoided and our global home on this planet is not to be irretrievably mutilated."

This is a frightening document; eminent scientists do not often sign such a strongly worded missive. But if the Scientists' Warning is frightening, the response of the media in North America was terrifying - there was no response. None of the major television networks bothered to report it, and both the New York Times and Washington Post dismissed it as "not newsworthy". And even today, when we have been told we could have as little as 10 years to avoid catastrophe, that is considered not worth reporting, while every antic of Paris Hilton or Britney Spears is reported in breathless detail, not for days or weeks but for months and years.

Instead we hear excuses to ignore the warnings: it will ruin the economy; technology will solve the problem; it is not fair when other countries are not included; there are other priorities demanding immediate attention, etc. And so we turn our backs on the very strategy that got us to where we are.

David Suzuki is emeritus professor at the sustainable development research institute, University of British Columbia.

[CENTER][/CENTER]
post #103 of 333
Thread Starter 
Quote:
"Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course. Human activities inflict harsh and often irreversible damage on the environment and critical resources. If not checked, many of our current practices put at serious risk the future we wish for human society . . . and may so alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know. Fundamental changes are urgent if we are to avoid the collision our present course will bring about."

This is pure nonsense. Doom and Gloom reign again.

Quote:
Experts estimate that more than 50,000 species now become extinct annually.

Really. Which ones? Which experts?

Quote:
More than half the planet's forests are gone, and if we continue to destroy them as we are doing there will be no large intact forests left within two decades.

Bunk. Let me guess...it's the timber industry? Here in the US, the industry has a sophisticated harvesting system planned out over 100 years. Trees are renewable. There are more of them in the US today than in colonial times. Or perhaps he's just on about the rainforests?

Quote:
The oceans are being depleted. A global study led by biologist Boris Worm, of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, predicts that if habitat destruction and overfishing continue, every exploited marine species will be commercially extinct by 2048.

Ahhh...the old "the oceans are running out of fish" line. It sounds like when my school kids go to an assembly to hear an aging hippie talke about the very same. Running out of fish. Jesus Christ.

Quote:
And for 20 years, climatologists have warned us that human activity is altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere, with consequent climate change occurring at unprecedented speed.

Yeah, and 10 years before that they were predicting a new ice age. The "consequent climate change" has not occured in terms of global average temperature.

Quote:
"Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course. Human activities inflict harsh and often irreversible damage on the environment and critical resources. If not checked, many of our current practices put at serious risk the future we wish for human society . . . and may so alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know. Fundamental changes are urgent if we are to avoid the collision our present course will bring about."

Except that human beings are part of the natural environment. Only human arrogance could be responsible for the notion that we can destroy a planet of 4.5 billion years by burning gas in our SUVs and cutting down trees.

Quote:
For decades, scientists in the US had pointed out that New Orleans was a disaster waiting to happen.

Not even close to the same issue. It was a virtual certainty that a powerful hurricane would strike New Orleans. Did we prepare? No. Should we have? Absolutely. But to suggest that we need to drastically cahnge our lifestyles because of certain Global Doom is going a bit far. We need to manage pollution, begin transitioning off fossil fuel, and generally be good stewards of the environment...but that doesn't mean we need to live in caves and dung huts, either.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #104 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

We need to manage pollution, begin transitioning off fossil fuel, and generally be good stewards of the environment...but that doesn't mean we need to live in caves and dung huts, either.

You just condensed the whole premise of the article with this last statement. Therefore you do believe that if we do not "manage pollution" and become "stewards of the environment" there will be serious consequences.

Suzuki's last paragraph...

Quote:
The need to look ahead and manoeuvre to exploit opportunities and avoid threats continues to be just as critical in modern society. The challenge is to find why we are rejecting foresight, why we can't see what the real threats are that confront us.

It says nothing in the article that we have to regress to our ancestors to do so. The technology is there and so is the mind and man power.

As far as your other comments...

post #105 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Ahhh...the old "the oceans are running out of fish" line. It sounds like when my school kids go to an assembly to hear an aging hippie talke about the very same. Running out of fish. Jesus Christ.



Devastation of trawling visible from space

Quote:
Widespread practice has significant impact on sea floor ecosystems

Bottom trawling for fish stirs up billowing plumes of sediment that can be seen from space and destroys entire seafloor ecosystems, new imagery reveals.

The technique, used all over the world, is a way to catch fish in deeper parts of the ocean with huge, deep nets, now that many near-shore fish populations have been virtually wiped out from over-fishing. Several studies have shown the significant impact that trawling has on ecosystems, killing corals, sponges, fish and other animals.

New and previously released satellite images show the extent of the plumes of material kicked up. And a video of the seafloor reveals how trawling denudes an underwater world.

"Bottom trawling is the most destructive of any actions that humans conduct in the ocean," said zoologist Les Watling of the University of Hawaii. "Ten years ago, Elliott Norse (of the Marine Conservation Biology Institute) and I calculated that, each year, worldwide, bottom trawlers drag an area equivalent to twice the lower 48 states. Most of that trawling happens in deep waters, out of sight. But now we can more clearly envision what trawling impacts down there by looking at the sediment plumes that are shallow enough for us to see from satellites."
post #106 of 333
Some people don't seem to even check online before making statements:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinct...ass_extinction

http://news.minnesota.publicradio.or..._biodiversity/

http://www.well.com/~davidu/extinction.html

Just a few of many possible linkies.

About the forests:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defores...estation_today

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/ey...on/effect.html

About the fish:

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/TECH/sci...appearingfish/

This has been said before: please do the research (took me all of five minutes) and post links.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #107 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Some people can't bother to even check online before making statements:

...

This has been said before: please do the research (took me all of five minutes) and post links.

SDW? You got to be kidding.
post #108 of 333
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

You just condensed the whole premise of the article with this last statement. Therefore you do believe that if we do not "manage pollution" and become "stewards of the environment" there will be serious consequences.

Suzuki's last paragraph...



It says nothing in the article that we have to regress to our ancestors to do so. The technology is there and so is the mind and man power.

As far as your other comments...


Come on. Do you honestly interpret the article in that way? The implication was that we needed to make major changes. In fact, he said as much directly.

What I'm saying is that we need to continue to be good stewards of the environment. Of course, we need to improve in certain areas, just as we improved by stopping the clear cutting of forests and relying less on dirty energy sources, like coal. It can be incremental. What I reject is the notion that if we continue on our current trajectory, the planet will explode. Pollution is not getting worse. In fact, for the most part it's getting better due to our efforts.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #109 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Come on. Do you honestly interpret the article in that way? The implication was that we needed to make major changes. In fact, he said as much directly.

What I'm saying is that we need to continue to be good stewards of the environment. Of course, we need to improve in certain areas, just as we improved by stopping the clear cutting of forests and relying less on dirty energy sources, like coal. It can be incremental. What I reject is the notion that if we continue on our current trajectory, the planet will explode. Pollution is not getting worse. In fact, for the most part it's getting better due to our efforts.

Our planet is not in big trouble. Mankind is. Believe me, our planet started off as a big ball of molten rock. It has done a wonderful job getting here. I think it could shed us off no problem and do just fine.
post #110 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Bunk. Let me guess...it's the timber industry? Here in the US, the industry has a sophisticated harvesting system planned out over 100 years. Trees are renewable. There are more of them in the US today than in colonial times. Or perhaps he's just on about the rainforests?

Proof?
"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell
Reply
"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell
Reply
post #111 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiopollution View Post

Proof?

Indeed, that was a pretty wild claim and I'd love to hear what evidence there is to support it.
Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Communist plot we have ever had to face? - Jack D. Ripper
Reply
Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Communist plot we have ever had to face? - Jack D. Ripper
Reply
post #112 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bancho View Post

Indeed, that was a pretty wild claim and I'd love to hear what evidence there is to support it.

I did a quick Google of "There are more trees in the US today than in colonial times" and found this quote from a blog commenter:

Quote:
There are more trees in the United States today than there have been since Colonial times.

With another commenter replying:

Quote:
The fact that there are more trees in the U.S. today than for 200 years (I assume you have proof) in itself says nothing about the full range of possible consequences of logging in previous centuries which, by the way, is not an issue I brought up in the first place. (There *is* widespread deforestation around the world, e.g. in Brazil, Central America, Indonesia, Congo, etc.)

The latter commenter didn't get proof either. \

We're waiting SDW...
post #113 of 333
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiopollution View Post

Proof?

I've posted it before. I do have some knowledge in this area as my father was in the wholesale lumber business for 25 years (independently, not for a major supplier...so no propaganda here, folks).
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #114 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

(independently, not for a major supplier...so no propaganda here, folks).

Ah, the unmistakable signs of a true Rush Limbough listener.
post #115 of 333
I did a google search for "US deforestation statistics" and found 1) 34% of the US is covered by forest and 2) forest cover has decreased by 90% since 1600.

Note that these two statistics are mutually exclusive.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #116 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

I did a google search for "US deforestation statistics" and found 1) 34% of the US is covered by forest and 2) forest cover has decreased by 90% since 1600.

Note that these two statistics are mutually exclusive.

... unless your talking about virgin forests in the lower 48 states.

34%/10% = 340% > 100% which is impossible.

[CENTER]
Quote:
Prior to the arrival of European-Americans about one half of the United States land area was forest, about 4 million square kilometers (1 billion acres) in 1600. For the next 300 years land was cleared, mostly for agriculture at a rate that matched the rate of population growth. For every person added to the population, one to two hectares of land was cultivated.[33] This trend continued until the 1920s when the amount of crop land stabilized in spite of continued population growth. As abandoned farm land reverted to forest the amount of forest land increased from 1952 reaching a peak in 1963 of 3,080,000 km² (762 million acres). Since 1963 there has been a steady decrease of forest area with the exception of some gains from 1997. Gains in forest land have resulted from conversions from crop land and pastures at a higher rate than loss of forest to development. Because urban development is expected to continue, an estimated 93,000 km² (23 million acres) of forest land is projected be lost by 2050, a 3% reduction from 1997. Other qualitative issues have been identified such as the continued loss of old-growth forest,[34] the increased fragmentation of forest lands, and the increased urbanization of forest land.[35]

[/CENTER]

Deforestation

References [33] thru [35] can be found on the web.

In 1600 forests covered 46% of the entire USA land area, and in 1992 forests covered 32% of the entire USA land area [see 33], so;

14%/46% = 30% loss of forest land since 1600. And the current forests have changed very little in areal extent since ~ 1920.

So we can definitively state that SDW10000BC is categorically wrong in the "There are more of them (i. e. trees) in the US today than in colonial times."

In fact, given that the 18th century population was virtually nil (compared to the 19th or 20th centuries), the 18th century forests had to have been close to the 46% of 1600.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #117 of 333
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

... unless your talking about virgin forests in the lower 48 states.

34%/10% = 340% > 100% which is impossible.



Deforestation

References [33] thru [35] can be found on the web.

In 1600 forests covered 46% of the lower 48, and in 1992 forests covered 32% of the lower 48 [see 33], so;

14%/46% = 30% loss of forest land since 1600. And the current forests have changed very little in areal extent since ~ 1920.

So we can definitively state that SDW10000BC is categorically wrong in the "There are more of them (i. e. trees) in the US today than in colonial times."

In fact, given that the 18th century population was virtually nil (compared to the 19th or 20th centuries), the 18th century forests had to have been close to the 46% of 1600.

That doesn't really address the actualy number of trees. Certainly there is less forestation. I've posted the data...I'll have to go find it again, which to be honest I don't have the time for at the moment.

By the way, for all those defenders of the IPCC:


http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/...5001/home.html

and for those predicting snow melting as fast as the clothes coming off a $5,000 hooker...

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories...3_coolest.html

Peace out, ya'll.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #118 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

That doesn't really address the actualy number of trees. Certainly there is less forestation. I've posted the data...I'll have to go find it again, which to be honest I don't have the time for at the moment.

By the way, for all those defenders of the IPCC:


http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/...5001/home.html

and for those predicting snow melting as fast as the clothes coming off a $5,000 hooker...

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories...3_coolest.html

Peace out, ya'll.

Yeah, right. Seeing is believing. No reference or no evidence = no proof of your specious claim(s)! \

[CENTER]
Quote:
An expression used of someone who is too involved in the details of a problem to look at the situation as a whole: “The congressman became so involved in the wording of his bill that he couldn’t see the forest for the trees; he did not realize that the bill could never pass.”

[/CENTER]

Forest

[CENTER]
Quote:
A forest is an area with a high density of trees.

[/CENTER]

Tree

[CENTER]
Quote:
A tree is a perennial woody plant.

[/CENTER]

I just bet those colonials kept accounting books (made from trees) of each individual tree. Right?

As to your first link to the "usual suspects";

Washington_Times

[CENTER]
Quote:
The Times is politically conservative. It was President Ronald Reagan's preferred newspaper. Some have cited it along with the Fox News Channel and talk radio as epitomizing the conservative media.

[/CENTER]

So perhaps this is some sort of right wingnut hit piece?

The subject of the article Global Warming: Experts’ Opinions versus Scientific Forecasts published by the NCPA and written by Kesten C. Green and J. Scott Armstrong.

NCPA

[CENTER]
Quote:
The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is an American non-profit conservative think tank.

[/CENTER]

Yup, it's looking a lot more like a right wingnut hit piece.

The authors, you say?

The author of the WT article was H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow with the NCPA.

The second author of this so called "report" is J. Scott Armstrong a Professor of Marketing at The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.

[CENTER]
Quote:
The Wharton School is the business school of University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Quote:
Most recently, Armstrong appears to be unhappy that those interested in global warming, including the IPCC, completely ignore the literature on forecasting principles that Armstrong writes [1]. To publicise this, he has extended a $20,000 Global Warming Challenge to Al Gore in June 2007, in the style of the Simon-Ehrlich wager. As of October 2007, Gore has ignored the challenge. Armstrongs blog, theclimatebet.com has chronicled the challenge. Climate scientist James Annan has described the challenge as "the most obvious and trivial trick"

[/CENTER]

J. Scott Armstrong

Nope, no bias there!

The lead author of this so called "report" is Kesten C. Green at the Business and Economic Forecasting Unit, Monash University

[CENTER]
Quote:
Predicting the decisions of others: the effects of role, interaction, and conflict on decision making; the effects of problem framing on forecasting accuracy; the use of analogies in forecasting; assessing probabilistic forecasts; judgmental forecasting methods; survey research methods; forecasting for negotiations and strategy in business and warfare, and for public policy.

[/CENTER]

Kesten C. Green's CV

Since when do business school types, have any say in the results obtained by scientific researchers?

Economic (social science) forecasts versus scientific (hard science) forecasts?

[CENTER]
Quote:
The social sciences, in studying subjective, inter-subjective and objective or structural aspects of society, are traditionally referred to as soft sciences.

Quote:
The social sciences are sometimes criticized as being less scientific than the natural sciences, in that they are seen as being less rigorous or empirical in their methods.

[/CENTER]

Social sciences criticisms

As to your second link from NOAA, good hard science;

[CENTER]
Quote:
In the contiguous United States, the average winter temperature was 33.2°F (0.6°C), which was 0.2°F (0.1°C) above the 20th century average – yet still ranks as the coolest since 2001. It was the 54th coolest winter since national records began in 1895.

Quote:
The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the 16th warmest on record for the December 2007-February 2008 period (0.58°F/0.32°C above the 20th century mean of 53.8°F/12.1°C). The presence of a moderate-to-strong La Niña contributed to an average temperature that was the coolest since the La Niña episode of 2000-2001.

[/CENTER]

So similar to 2001, scientists are telling us that there is a moderate-to-strong La Niña, which means that the eastern Pacific Ocean is colder than normal;

[CENTER]
Quote:
La Niña is a coupled ocean-atmosphere phenomenon similar to El Niño. During a period of La Niña, the sea surface temperature across the equatorial Eastern Central Pacific Ocean will be lower than normal by 0.5 °C.

Quote:
La Niña is the opposite of El Niño (aka ENSO), where the latter corresponds instead to a higher sea surface temperature by a deviation of at least 0.5 °C.


Sea Surface Temperature (aka SST) - November 2007[/CENTER]

La Nina for November

[CENTER]
Quote:
On December 20, 2007, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) issued its weather prediction for the winter of 2007-2008. In forecasting weather for the continental United States, NOAA examines several factors, but first among them is the state of the El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO), which leads to El Niño and La Niña. For the coming winter, NOAA predicted a moderately strong La Niña.

Quote:
La Niña influences temperature and precipitation in North America. Considering the ongoing La Niña as well as long-term temperature and precipitation trends, NOAA issued a prediction for cooler-than-normal temperatures from the Pacific Northwest through the northern states to northern Michigan. Much of the rest of the nation, including northwest Alaska, was expected to experience warmer-than-normal temperatures. The winter prediction also called for above-average precipitation in the Pacific Northwest and northern Rocky Mountains, and below-average precipitation in the Southwest, the southern and central plains, much of the Southeast, and the mid-Atlantic coast.

[/CENTER]

Also see monthly SST anomalies at NASA Earth Observations (NEO), the latest monthly image is January 2008.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #119 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

And you have no understanding of pure irony. Do you actually think we can make judgements about our planet's overall climate in 30 years time. Or even 100?

I have been told by my parents that, the moment I was born in mid-September of 1972, I yelled out "It will be hot in Mississippi in August, 2008."
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #120 of 333
Thread Starter 
Frank:

While I cannot begin to fathom the length of your post, I will respond with this: Trees are in places designated as non-forests (perhaps this should be in the "duh" tread in AO).

Here is something interesting...a study done about Newtown Square, PA....which coincidentally happens to be right down the road from me.

http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/newtown_squa.../ne_gtr312.pdf
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Another setback for Teh Global Warming™