Global warming

[starmanres]

Originally posted by Peter Eichler
You saying global warming doesn't exist is akin to the people saying evolution doesn't exist. Sadly, there are a heck of a lot of those people running around as well.

As for the second part of this incredible post, if "we evolved from monkeys" is the explanation for our development and evolution is ongoing all the time and Monkeys still exist then why aren't there any monkeys evolving into humans happening right now? It should still be happened at some point over the past 3,000 years of recorded history. In fact a half monkey person should be walking around right now from these evolving monkeys - but no, there aren't any. In fact - they can't even find any bones of any.

The explanation that maybe our creator made a monkey and then saw that making a few adaptations to improve the monkey to a better species is too far out to believe or even tell our kids in schools... So we've moved to explaining adaptation and intelligence as evolution.

Animals adapt and are intelligent. We see it in our reefs every day.

My breeding Clowns are not going to have offspring that will develop into turtles, or birds, or monkeys - they will always be clown fish. They might have different colors or different stripes but the eggs will grow up to be clown fish.

Your post proves that if you say something loud enough and long enough - no matter how foolish it is - It must be the truth.

[paran]

Well, only one thing to say to everyone.

I believe in GW, being a scientist myself. I see the evidence.

Pulling info from a article back in 1975.. wow. That's over 30 years ago. Think about the computer systems back then compared to now. Perhaps we KNOW a little more now.

For those who don't believe, well, you will look back at now in the coming years and go, "Gee, guess I was wrong. Probably should have done something about it when I had the chance." And so will your children.

[Sk8r]

There's a difference between an argument citing people and one citing data. I'll go with the second sort, myself.

I live right atop the result of the last big climate change, and am well aware of the time frame. 13,000 years since the last big thaw ripped the surface off western WA. 13000 years since nature began building the big reefs we have now. 13000 years since mammoths and wooly rhinos could have had a foothold here, and that was a global warming. It still left us with some glaciers, which hiccuped a bit wider during the Little Ice Age, which ended/fizzled off about 200 years ago, having onset around the time of the Viking raids on England. But it has now more than fizzled off. The warming has exceeded previous benchmarks set during the last 13000 years, and is going to change sea level---is already in process of changing the sea level and salinity.

The things most people accept as 'the world'--- the reefs, and the current map of the world---are in fact 13000 years old.

So yep, climate change isn't some long-ago thing, relative to those things. Now, mind, earliest known urban civilization dates to about 9,000 BC, so we weren't standing there in 3 piece suits watching the Columbia Gorge rip out toward the sea, but we're standing here in that condition watching the last glaciers on the planet melt, watching pieces of Antarctica float by, watching the North Pole melt---and having just lately gotten enough science done to realize that (the reason Britain and New York and the Pacific NW are warmer than their latitude suggests) the warm ocean currents MOVE because of the thermohaline phenomenon---salt drives them. Change the relative salinity at a couple of vulnerable places, and people in the north should buy parkas and people in the south are going to bake.
"Global warming" maybe, but it leads to "global climate change." Sure it's a 'natural cycle'---like a big rock, it'll slide downhill. It goes faster and straighter if you grease the skids...and what I'm talking about isn't PREVENTING it---you can't. But while we stand debating about it, we're not doing as much as we should do to prepare our civilization to hold out if we lose our major agricultural belts to an ice field and simultaneously lose the southern rain patterns and have an overheat in those regions. Planets pretty well stay as hot or as cold as they are due to solar output and planetary albedo---but they move the cold and heat around---we call it 'weather' and 'winds'. ---one area gets way cold, then another gets correspondingly hot. The average may stay the same, but the extremification of the regions means collapse of plant and animal populations that rely on the status quo.
Can we buy it off? No. Prepare for the event---and the possibility of a rapid onset, as may be indicated in some models? I think that's a prudent notion.

[starmanres]

Originally posted by Sk8r
There's a difference between an argument citing people and one citing data. I'll go with the second sort, myself.

I live right atop the result of the last big climate change, and am well aware of the time frame. 13,000 years since the last big thaw ripped the surface off western WA. 13000 years since nature began building the big reefs we have now. 13000 years since mammoths and wooly rhinos could have had a foothold here, and that was a global warming. It still left us with some glaciers, which hiccuped a bit wider during the Little Ice Age, which ended/fizzled off about 200 years ago, having onset around the time of the Viking raids on England. But it has now more than fizzled off. The warming has exceeded previous benchmarks set during the last 13000 years, and is going to change sea level---is already in process of changing the sea level and salinity.

The things most people accept as 'the world'--- the reefs, and the current map of the world---are in fact 13000 years old.

So yep, climate change isn't some long-ago thing, relative to those things. Now, mind, earliest known urban civilization dates to about 9,000 BC, so we weren't standing there in 3 piece suits watching the Columbia Gorge rip out toward the sea, but we're standing here in that condition watching the last glaciers on the planet melt, watching pieces of Antarctica float by, watching the North Pole melt---and having just lately gotten enough science done to realize that (the reason Britain and New York and the Pacific NW are warmer than their latitude suggests) the warm ocean currents MOVE because of the thermohaline phenomenon---salt drives them. Change the relative salinity at a couple of vulnerable places, and people in the north should buy parkas and people in the south are going to bake.
"Global warming" maybe, but it leads to "global climate change." Sure it's a 'natural cycle'---like a big rock, it'll slide downhill. It goes faster and straighter if you grease the skids...and what I'm talking about isn't PREVENTING it---you can't. But while we stand debating about it, we're not doing as much as we should do to prepare our civilization to hold out if we lose our major agricultural belts to an ice field and simultaneously lose the southern rain patterns and have an overheat in those regions. Planets pretty well stay as hot or as cold as they are due to solar output and planetary albedo---but they move the cold and heat around---we call it 'weather' and 'winds'. ---one area gets way cold, then another gets correspondingly hot. The average may stay the same, but the extremification of the regions means collapse of plant and animal populations that rely on the status quo.
Can we buy it off? No. Prepare for the event---and the possibility of a rapid onset, as may be indicated in some models? I think that's a prudent notion.

Excellent response and well thought out. I commend you on your insight and expression.

[kslick]

I don't think anyone is blaming just the US, that's why it's called Global Warming. I do think we go through cycles, but the cycles are getting more dramatic. Polar Bears on the verge of becoming extinct. Warming waters breaking down ecosystems..i.e.red plankton, breeding patterns.....and so on. Look at events like Katrina, hurricane seasons getting bigger, tornado season growing. I lived in CO and we had water restrictions because not enough snow fall. Just a few thoughts.

[hahnmeister]

Originally posted by starmanres
As for the second part of this incredible post, if "we evolved from monkeys" is the explanation for our development and evolution is ongoing all the time and Monkeys still exist then why aren't there any monkeys evolving into humans happening right now? It should still be happened at some point over the past 3,000 years of recorded history. In fact a half monkey person should be walking around right now from these evolving monkeys - but no, there aren't any. In fact - they can't even find any bones of any.

The explanation that maybe our creator made a monkey and then saw that making a few adaptations to improve the monkey to a better species is too far out to believe or even tell our kids in schools... So we've moved to explaining adaptation and intelligence as evolution.

Animals adapt and are intelligent. We see it in our reefs every day.

My breeding Clowns are not going to have offspring that will develop into turtles, or birds, or monkeys - they will always be clown fish. They might have different colors or different stripes but the eggs will grow up to be clown fish.

Your post proves that if you say something loud enough and long enough - no matter how foolish it is - It must be the truth.

Well, thats not how evolution happens really. Natural selection doesnt involve whole populations mutating into more advanced lifeforms. Often there is a void, and then some species evolves to take advantage of that void. Once the void is filled, there is no reason to evolve into that void further, because if there was, there would already be another species in that void. At that, evolution is all about mutation, and the 'luckiest' mutation being passed on and on. After a mutation develops into a new species, it can develop further, and the final product can end up replacing the stages of evolution up to that point. Its believed that **** sapiens simply killed off their earlier versions like erectus.

At that, evolution is happening all around us, even within ourselves. Humans are getting smarter, larger, etc. We are in some ways, a different species than we were thousands of years ago. Natural selection means those with more positive features replace those with less... so as a whole, humans are becomming prettier at the least, which, Id say is true if you look through history. But in other species, evolution is happening today. Look at dogs. Sure, humans have accelerated the mutations through selective breeding, but its natural selection still. Terriers, Bulldogs, greyhounds... all wolves at one time. And today we do make cross breeds to play with their genetic evolution even further.

Also, look at bacteria and viruses, they mutate and evolve every day.

And mantis shrimp... due to pollution, Japan is growing some monster size ones off their shores. Just decades ago, these mutations didnt exist.

[HippieSmell]

Originally posted by starmanres
As for the second part of this incredible post, if "we evolved from monkeys" is the explanation for our development and evolution is ongoing all the time and Monkeys still exist then why aren't there any monkeys evolving into humans happening right now? It should still be happened at some point over the past 3,000 years of recorded history. In fact a half monkey person should be walking around right now from these evolving monkeys - but no, there aren't any. In fact - they can't even find any bones of any.

We didn't evolve from monkeys, were ARE monkeys. Also, we aren't necessarily an offshoot of some primate that is living right now, but we do share a common ancestor with them that is now extinct. And 3000 years is nothing, you need hundreds of thousands of years (at least) to show major variation in any population (evolution). As for the "half monkey people" that should be walking around, I'll do you one better. Bonobos and chimps are both over 95% genetically similar to humans. Small variations in DNA can create large changes in how an organism looks; it's like judging a book by its cover.

Originally posted by starmanres
My breeding Clowns are not going to have offspring that will develop into turtles, or birds, or monkeys - they will always be clown fish. They might have different colors or different stripes but the eggs will grow up to be clown fish.

Your post proves that if you say something loud enough and long enough - no matter how foolish it is - It must be the truth.

They could evolve, given enough time. The eggs your clowns lay will be clowns, but they will have small variations. Over time, those variations coupled with breeding isolation will result in a new species.

[xtm]

Originally posted by starmanres
So basically whatever happens - we were right. It may get cooler or warmer or wetter or dryer but that just supports that we know that driving your SUV is bad-bad-bad!

Well, there is a report that the Prius creates more environmental damage than any SUV.. PS - I dont own an SUV

[paran]

Believe it says hummer, not "Any SUV"

[starmanres]

Originally posted by kslick
I don't think anyone is blaming just the US, that's why it's called Global Warming. I do think we go through cycles, but the cycles are getting more dramatic. Polar Bears on the verge of becoming extinct. Warming waters breaking down ecosystems..i.e.red plankton, breeding patterns.....and so on. Look at events like Katrina, hurricane seasons getting bigger, tornado season growing. I lived in CO and we had water restrictions because not enough snow fall. Just a few thoughts.

Huh?

Have you ever READ the Kyoto Protocol? It is aimed straight at the United States - not anyone else.

Polar Bears? The Polar Bears are fine. Almost every time they have attempted to check on the Polar Bears in the Arctic Circle it has been postponed due to excessive cold.

Katrina? OMG, Katrina was bad because of the Local and State authorities did not respond to the needs of the people fast enough and the people living there took NO responsibility for themselves. They waited on the government to do something. It was a government and personal responsibility failure - not a specifically a GW enhanced hurricane. The U.S. has had worse Hurricanes before Katrina and anyone that knows anything about New Orleans knew that they were below sea level. Anything over a class 3 hurricane was going to disable the city. Hurricanes are not any worse because the storms are more powerful. They are worse because more people live on the coast in their paths and construction costs more to rebuild each year.

Tornados? I live in Tornado Alley - Always have. We have always had Tornados. We will always have Tornados. Some years it is bad and we have many. Other years we have almost none. It's a fact of living where we live like earthquakes in California and snow in the Northeast- We deal with it.

Colorado has had to deal with more water in the form of snow this year than Katrina dumped on New Orleans. You have dry seasons and wet ones. Again, way before someone built the first auto, this was happening.

No really... Turn off CNN for a while and read some unbiased information on the subject for a change. The media does not report the news; they advance their agendas.

To spew out the envio-talking points tells me the indoctrination of America is succeeding all too well.

[DSMpunk]

Originally posted by xtm
Well, there is a report that the Prius creates more environmental damage than any SUV.. PS - I dont own an SUV

That article has been debunked

Also, stop feeding the trolls

[kslick]

First off, the polar bears are not fine. Colorado has had the worst drought in 50 years. I lived in OK and I'll I'm saying is tornandos are growing in numbers and strenght. Let's not get into the whole Katrina thing, we understand the real problem is how we are handling the response and after affects. The slight warming of the Gulf can cause a huge sift in the capabilty of a storm. I'm not gonna get into the whole propaganda of all this.

All I really said was the planet goes through cycles, but it seems that the cycles are getting worse, not only by the US, but the whole world.

One more thing, I don't get my info from CNN, I worked for NCAR until I left CO a few weeks ago.

[Peter Eichler]

Originally posted by starmanres
As for the second part of this incredible post, if "we evolved from monkeys" is the explanation for our development and evolution is ongoing all the time and Monkeys still exist then why aren't there any monkeys evolving into humans happening right now? It should still be happened at some point over the past 3,000 years of recorded history. In fact a half monkey person should be walking around right now from these evolving monkeys - but no, there aren't any. In fact - they can't even find any bones of any.

The explanation that maybe our creator made a monkey and then saw that making a few adaptations to improve the monkey to a better species is too far out to believe or even tell our kids in schools... So we've moved to explaining adaptation and intelligence as evolution.

Animals adapt and are intelligent. We see it in our reefs every day.

My breeding Clowns are not going to have offspring that will develop into turtles, or birds, or monkeys - they will always be clown fish. They might have different colors or different stripes but the eggs will grow up to be clown fish.

Your post proves that if you say something loud enough and long enough - no matter how foolish it is - It must be the truth.

C'mon man, clearly you don't understand the science behind these concepts. I'm not going to get into a creation vs. evolution debate because it's absolutely pointless when one argument relies completely on faith and the other on scientific fact.

No scientist on the planet says we evolved from monkeys. As touched on earlier, we're more closely related to apes and chimps than any monkey. That said, we didn't evolve from apes or chimps either. We share a common ancestor that evolved over 5 million years ago that diverged into seperate lineages. One of these lineages evolved into early human ancestors called hominids the other lineage evolved into modern apes and chimps.

[DSMpunk]

Have you ever READ the Kyoto Protocol? It is aimed straight at the United States - not anyone else.

Wow..have YOU ever read the Kyoto protocol? It at no point singles out the United States. Under the agreement the US would be considered an Annex I and an Annex II country meaning they would be under the exact same agreement as basically every other developed country that signed the protocol. (with a few minor exceptions) These countries include.

Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States of America

The only countries that would have had exception were the non annex I countries. These are basically just the 3rd world countries.

Now because the US is also considered an Annex II country along with..

Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, European Union, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States of America

we would have agreed to help fund some of the non-annex I countries, because they could not do it on their own.

[starmanres]

Originally posted by DSMpunk
Wow..have YOU ever read the Kyoto protocol? It at no point singles out the United States. Under the agreement the US would be considered an Annex I and an Annex II country meaning they would be under the exact same agreement as basically every other developed country that signed the protocol. (with a few minor exceptions) These countries include.

Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States of America

The only countries that would have had exception were the non annex I countries. These are basically just the 3rd world countries.

Now because the US is also considered an Annex II country along with..

Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, European Union, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States of America

we would have agreed to help fund some of the non-annex I countries, because they could not do it on their own.

The Kyoto treaty is just a disguised attempt to get the world's hands into our back pocket while blaming us for this supposed catastrophe that is global warming. There will be no catastrophe. Everything in the Kyoto protocol is apocalyptic and exaggerated.

This is so simple it's hard to believe. Global warming, and environmentalism in general, is just the vehicle they are driving to advance their overall agenda, which is anti-capitalism, and big-government socialism. That's all it is, and they're relying on the fact that they can scare people into agreeing with them. It's about nothing more than that.

Canada won't sign it and neither will Australia. I noticed you conveniently left out China and Russia - the worst offenders of Greenhouse gases.

The president made a famous speech not too long ago in Germany. And after the speech he met with some government people from around the region in Europe. One of the attendees ran up to Bush and shouted, "Kyoto!" And Bush said, "Not signing it." The guy shouted again, "Kyoto!" And Bush repeated again, "Not signing it." Then the guy asked why, and the president simply said, "I'm not in the business of purposely damaging my country's economy, because if we hurt my country we hurt the rest of the world, too. I'm not signing it."

The United Nations has developed a way to bilk the US for billions to pay 2nd and 3rd world countries for the "damage we've done".
Luckily we're fortunate that our president is standing tough on this. The Kyoto treaty has been a bad deal from the moment it first came up.

97 US Senators voted against signing it. We can't get 97 Senators to agree the sky is blue.

If you damage the US economy, you damage the World's Economy. Look what happened after 9/11. All countries suffered recessions.

Most of the countries you listed would benefit from Kyoto and not have to change a thing or pay a dime. It is amazing to me the inability of people to think about the long term repercussions of these actions.

[DSMpunk]

I wasnt agreeing or disagreeing with the policy. You had stated the protocol " was aimed at the united states and nobody else" I believe this is an inaccurate statement. Thats all.

[starmanres]

Originally posted by DSMpunk
I wasnt agreeing or disagreeing with the policy. You had stated the protocol " was aimed at the united states and nobody else" I believe this is an inaccurate statement. Thats all.

I will clarify... It is aimed at the pocketbook of the U.S. - No one else.

[hahnmeister]

Didnt the US refuse to sign the Kyoto protocol?

As for storms like hurricanes and tornados... it is true at as more humidity gets released into the atmosphere, and temperatures rise, the frequency and severity of the storms will increase. Its like a 'net thermodynamic increase' in potential energy... the water in the air acts as a battery, and with that potential for more phase change, the weather will no doubt become more violent. Any meteorologist will agree with that.

I think that the 'conservative' side of the debate is that 'this could be happening to other reasons than man's pollution', and there is a small chance that this could be correct, Ill give the conservative viewpoint that. But I have yet to hear a conservative viewpoint that proves that global warming is total BS (at least one that stands up), and so the best argument against it seems to be that it 'might be wrong'. Well, if I get in my car and have to decide to wear my seatbelt or not based on if I will get in an accident or not, I would more than likely not wear my seatbelt based on probability. But that small chance that I might be wrong, and the possibly tragic results of not doing so is what makes me wear it. Given the same choice with the environment, I think that taking steps to reverse the warming trend is the safer bet... if we are wrong, the worst thing that will happen is we spent alot of money on renewable energy that means we wont be at the mercy of the oil companies anf foreign interests any more. If we do nothing, and we are wrong, we end up dead. Given the risks, being Green just makes sense, even if we dont know anything for sure.

I think looking at motivations behind the political aspects are interesting though. I think many conservative views on this are based on self-serving attitudes. The guy who drives his Hummer 30 miles to work every day isnt going to like being pointed at by the little girl riding in the car pool lane in her mom's Prius. He simply may want to keep his large truck, and doesnt want to accept the possibility of what he is doing. Its easier to take an attitude that supports your actions sometimes.

I just hope that politics is removed from the debate more in the future. The whole reason we are using oil now is due to lobbying in the 30's and 40's when 'big oil' was getting off the ground. Up until then, most every vehicle could run on gas or alchohol... but the centralized power of the oil importers, and their needs to government cooperation and involvement is what made them win out in passing legislation which made alchohol production less than ideal for the many many farmers who would otherwise be still producing ethanol today. And now the US is stuck in a global conflict with countries we need to provide our energy. Just imagine if 60-70 years ago the US rejected the oil-company politics, and went with ethanol in the first place. Think about how our relations with the middle-east would be different, and how we would have control over our own fuel costs. Think about how then the last decades of 'global warming' wouldnt even be happening because our cars would be burning ethanol... which produces CO2 and water. Hasn't politics done a bad enough job already?

[HippieSmell]

Originally posted by starmanres
This is so simple it's hard to believe. Global warming, and environmentalism in general, is just the vehicle they are driving to advance their overall agenda, which is anti-capitalism, and big-government socialism. That's all it is, and they're relying on the fact that they can scare people into agreeing with them. It's about nothing more than that.

Get out your tinfoil hat!

[starmanres]

Originally posted by HippieSmell
Get out your tinfoil hat!

Posted like a true tree-hugger.

Don't go Green - Get Stoned!

[cloak]

Didn't read the reply's, sorry bout that.

We need the world, the world does not need us.

FWIW