Global Warming dramatically worsens...

bcp

In My Opinion
Im not sure how many others have noticed, but I have been tracking this global warming thing for some time now.

Do you all realize that since the mexicans have been jumping the fence at an increased frequency, the temperature of the northern hemisphere has been rising at a rate equal to that of the actual spanish speaking taco eating body mass?

All we really need to do is to start sending them back, we can ship them back down and watch the average temperatures, when we find a setting we like, we let the rest stay.
kinda like a human thermostat.
 

AndyMarquisLIVE

New Member
truby20 said:
:whack:

you speaking nationwide or locally?

for National Airport :
01/04: 4.4 deg BELOW avg
01/05: 1.1 deg above avg
01/06: 8.1 deg above avg

And across the Nation:

01/04: 0.2 deg below avg
01/05: 2.5 deg above avg
01/06: 8.5 deg above avg

NCDC 2004 data
NCDC 2005 data
and 2006

why did you say the last three were WELL above normal?

2 degrees and certainly 8 degrees above average for an entire month are considered quite dramatic. ESPICALLY the 8 degrees deal.

You know as well as I do when it comes to temperature trends, 2-3 degrees makes alot of differences in a meteorlogical debate over global warming and other matters.
 

Vince

......
bcp said:
Im not sure how many others have noticed, but I have been tracking this global warming thing for some time now.

Do you all realize that since the mexicans have been jumping the fence at an increased frequency, the temperature of the northern hemisphere has been rising at a rate equal to that of the actual spanish speaking taco eating body mass?

All we really need to do is to start sending them back, we can ship them back down and watch the average temperatures, when we find a setting we like, we let the rest stay.
kinda like a human thermostat.
Didn't you read the one on the US population hitting the 300 million mark? That has to throw the earth off it's axis and get us more of the sun, hence the increase in the average temperature. Elementary. :shrug:
 

dck4shrt

New Member
If you don't 'believe' in climate change, than there is no reason to continue reading. If you think that its root cause, rate of change, extent of change, and the use of scare tactics is worthy of debate then proceed.

First off, it's called global climate change . Not global warming. Some places will get warmer, some will get cooler, some will get wetter, others drier. Some areas probably won't change much at all. This has been happening since the beginning of time. The only difference this go around is that we are a part of the equation (a variable difficult to measure in a difficult problem to begin with).

Any statistican will tell you that measuring the average temperature will tell you very little/nothing about global climate change. You need to look at the variance around that average.
The variability surrounding weather events and seasonal activity will fluctuate away from what is considered 'normal'. But the average of all of that activity may stay reasonably close to what it is today.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
In some ways, this kind of reminds me of folks who hear about entropy and the second law of thermodynamics - and somehow mess it all up. Entropy, in a nutshell, describes the universal trend towards disorder, that energy goes from a more ordered state to a more disordered state - and it can't be reversed. Nitwits who either have something to prove or don't understand the premise will point to cases of energy going from states of disorder to states of order - and claim it's wrong - usually people who are claiming something about the universe and evolution.

Of course, if you even TOOK a single course in thermodynamics as an undergraduate, you'd know that it describes the universe - you can always have LOCAL decreases in entropy, but when you include everything, it always goes up. An example might be something like a crystal forming from molecules - it shows higher order, but it squandered a lot more energy to achieve it than is represented in its order.

Global warming or climate change is like that. You can have a warm year, but the globe as a whole is changing. It's really not a hard concept. It would be like a voter saying "how come Bush won? Everyone *I* know voted for Kerry". You have to take in the entire picture.

Bush himself and leading Republicans are NOT in denial that it is taking place, as some on this board are. They're firmly of the opinion that it IS. They even concur that humans are contributing to it. What they dispute is, is the contribution significant enough to warrant the solutions offered, and do the solutions work? I'd have to agree with them that Kyoto has zero chance of doing anything to stop global warming.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
*gasp*

bcp said:
Im not sure how many others have noticed, but I have been tracking this global warming thing for some time now.

Do you all realize that since the mexicans have been jumping the fence at an increased frequency, the temperature of the northern hemisphere has been rising at a rate equal to that of the actual spanish speaking taco eating body mass?

All we really need to do is to start sending them back, we can ship them back down and watch the average temperatures, when we find a setting we like, we let the rest stay.
kinda like a human thermostat.


...the dreaded 'Jalepeno' effect!
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Dee Nile...

SamSpade said:
NOT in denial that it is taking place, as some on this board are.

...here.

Warming in what context? The last 100 years? 500? How about the excellent data recording of 5,000 or even 50,000 years ago?

And what did we do 'wrong' then? Too many fires in the cave? Use unseasoned wood?

My whole point is that ANYTHING that is happening to this planet is irrelevant in a conversation of what 'we' can or should be dong about. It is meaningless
in, as you say, the big picture.

First off, people who complain about our use of fossil fuel and then want us to drive Yugo's or ride a bike instead of build nuclear reactors are not interested in solutions; they're interested in how they feel about it.

Second, if we stopped using oil tomorrow, it would have ZERO positive effect on global warming. Is China gonna stop? The rest of the developing and growing world? Who is supposed to freeze to death or starve in the name of Mother Earth? Any volunteers? Who gets to die when their Super car gets flipped over by the wind or it bumps into a tree?

Matters of degree you say? Reduction, not elimination? Fine, so we cut back, what, 10% and then what? NOTHING, that's what. Anything we don't use WILL be used by someone else and cheaper to boot because of supply and demand.

It is beyond absurd to not recognize that our energy use is accelerating and will continue to do so...forever. When the conversation is based on this irrefutable FACT then I'm interested.

200 years ago I used some wood to heat the home, cook some food, a few logs at a time. I am using exponentially more energy to type this WORD and to have a light bulb in the room which is to say nothing of the energy used in making this computer and building and distributing and selling the light fixture. And I still haven't made lunch nor is it all that cold or hot outside...at the moment.

We WILL use more and more and more energy per person than yesterday and this will go on and on and on. We will turn a barrel of oil or some gas or some coal or some radioactivity or wind or sun or switch grass or corn or flowing water into ever more refined energy to live our lives.

This equation will multiply and magnify as person after person, throughout the world, raises their standard of living. Fast forward two generations when the Chinese live as we did two generations before now. That right there will double the use of energy. Where will we be? Where will the other 5 billion or so people be? India, Europe, on and on?

Do we keep them in the desert, the jungle, away from modernization?

Anyone who truly cares about our environment, including me, MUST face reality and understand that NOTHING would be better for us than to USE UP oil as fast as possible. For every MPG increase in fuel standards we mandate, there is more oil for some other Shmoe in East BF to burn, and he will burn it. We use up oil, we move on to the next great thing.

I'll grant you that we are the 'problem' on one condition; We talk about EFFECTIVE solutions. I'm not interested in feel good chat about wind mills, sweaters and tiny cars.

Then, just when we all feel better and our air is PERFECT, good old Mother Nature might just plummet us into the deep freeze anyway or melt us or crack open her crust for awhile and mess us all up.
 
Ponytail said:
:rolleyes: Where do you think he gets all of his accurate info? If it's on the interweb thingy then it must be true! Everyone knows that.
And don't forget...
 

Attachments

  • petezaastamp.bmp
    97.8 KB · Views: 91

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
Larry Gude said:
...here.

Warming in what context? The last 100 years? 500? How about the excellent data recording of 5,000 or even 50,000 years ago?

And I'm not really sure what the rest of the post is about, because I neither suggested any of it, nor implied it - and I do not agree with any of those ideas. Frankly, some of the environmental solutions that have been proposed are an awful lot like trying to cut down on electricity by turning off lights while leaving the AC on full blast. It'll do something, but its effect is negligible. That's why green efforts I've seen are pointless - they'd still be marginal even if EVERYONE did them.

As you've observed, Kyoto is pointless as long as it retains provisions to essentially barter and trade the ability to pollute. If it does nothing to lower the total global emissions, it's kind of pointless WHO is doing it. So far, I think every nation that signed on has failed to live up to their promises.

Most of the solutions I've seen that CAN work - are based on either scrubbing CO2 from the atmosphere - or adding things to the atmosphere to retard the heating of the planet. Scrubbers could work, because they can take a myriad of forms.

*Eventually*, we will have to find more environmentally friendly ways of doing things. More 'green' technology can at least get us that far. I'm glad that somewhere along the line, we decided not to keep creating air-choking factories and cities smothered in soot, a hundred years ago. Unfortunately, a few BILLION more people are just catching up to that level of development.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
Larry Gude said:
Anyone who truly cares about our environment, including me, MUST face reality and understand that NOTHING would be better for us than to USE UP oil as fast as possible.

The earth is never going to run out of oil.

Never.

Never ever ever.

What it WILL do, it run out of cheap, easy to reach oil. When we stop drilling for oil, we'll start going for shale oil - or oil sands - or go deep under the ocean. There's oil available to last just about forever, as long as someone wants to pay to get it. Someday, maybe a million years from now, we'll stop going to get oil, and try synthesizing oil.

What we cannot do indefinitely, is produce energy by - basically, burning it.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
Larry Gude said:
Is there another way to get energy out of it?

Maybe I should have clarified. We should make use of alternative sources of energy. I'm not really sure where it's going to come from, but burning fuel will always be adding carbon to the atmosphere. It's stupid to produce energy and put carbon INTO the air, and then expend energy to somehow take it OUT of the air. It would be best if we found other options.

That being said, if ALL of the emissions could be trapped from burning fuel, and we simply made use of all of the heat energy - well, that would work, wouldn't it? I don't know that anyone's really trying to do that yet.
 
Top