Windmills along the lake

[Pineedles]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

Not to mention sunspots and slight wobbles in earths rotation that have a far more reaching effect than man has had. I'm not saying we should not develop cleaner forms of energy. We absolutely should,have already done so, and will continue to but not at the end of the gun!

Particularly a gun held by the likes of Al Gore. Wait a minute, given his inaccuracy with quotes like "I invented the Internet", maybe his inaccuracy is just as bad with a .357. Fool would probably shoot himself in the foot.

[Yosemite Sam]

Originally Posted by Pineedles

Particularly a gun held by the likes of Al Gore. Wait a minute, given his inaccuracy with quotes like "I invented the Internet", maybe his inaccuracy is just as bad with a .357. Fool would probably shoot himself in the foot.

Poor AL, he tries, but most of us can see right thru him.

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

Not to mention sunspots and slight wobbles in earths rotation that have a far more reaching effect than man has had. I'm not saying we should not develop cleaner forms of energy. We absolutely should, have already done so, and will continue to but not at the end of the gun!

The earths rotation and angular location to the sun plays a big role in our temperatures. Any variance from "norm" and we can/should expect changes.

Originally Posted by Pineedles

Not to throw water on the party, and SIKSUKR nailed it when he said "man-made global warming", but there are geology findings that point to periods of the earth's history, and I'm talking 10s of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years ago where warming and cooling has been influenced by carbon and other particulates in the atmosphere. Although we may be contributing to warming, it is an amount that is so miniscule in comparison to other natural occurences, like volcanoes. This should be the meeting point for both sides of the arguement. I do think the global warming thing has been blown way out of proportion and we should be concerned about the general overpopulation of the earth and concentrate on how we can feed and shelter future generations using our God given natural resources but keep an eye on where our next source of energy will come from and try to develop them. But that does not mean abandon nuclear, and fossil fuels, on the false premise that the earth will be destroyed in 50 or 100 (pick a year) years.

Excellent points!!!

[Shedwannabe]

For information on the "climate change denier" movement, see http://www.realclimate.org/, an organization formed by climate scientists appalled at the lies being put out (I'm not talking about "disagreements" I'm talking outright lies) to persuade the public that the scientific community was not in substantial agreement about climate change.

To the comment that volcanos put out a lot of CO2... yes they do... but nothing compared to what humans put out.

"Up to 40% of the gas emitted by some volcanoes during subaerial eruptions is carbon dioxide. It is estimated that volcanoes release about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. This is about a factor of 1000 smaller than the sum of the other natural sources and about factor of about 100 smaller than the sources from human activity.. .Emissions of CO2 by human activities are currently more than 130 times greater than the quantity emitted by volcanoes, amounting to about 27 billion tonnes per year." From Wikipedia

So Pineedles - it seems your idea that volcanoes put more CO2 into the atmosphere than human activity is just plain wrong.

Now there are natural feedback loops that can handle increased carbon dioxin:

"The good news: The earth’s carbon cycle has natural negative feedbacks that reverse natural surges in carbon dioxide.

The bad news: We are spewing CO2 into the atmosphere 14,000 times faster than nature has over the past 600,000 years, far too quickly for those feedbacks to respond.

“These feedbacks operate so slowly that they will not help us in terms of climate change … that we’re going to see in the next several hundred years,” Zeebe said by telephone from the University of Hawaii. “Right now we have put the system entirely out of equilibrium.“

Zeebe notes that, “the average change in the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide over the last 600,000 years has been just 22 parts per million by volume.” Humans have run up CO2 levels 100 ppm over the last two centuries!

In the ancient past, excess carbon dioxide came mostly from volcanoes, which spewed very little of the chemical compared to what humans activities do now, but it still had to be addressed.

This antique excess carbon dioxide — a powerful greenhouse gas — was removed from the atmosphere through the weathering of mountains, which take in the chemical….

The natural mechanism will eventually absorb the excess carbon dioxide, Zeebe said, but not for hundreds of thousands of years."

Additionally, it seems the carbon dioxide level has been below the current level for at leat the last 600,000 years.

So what would ignoring increasing carbon dioxide levels do to us? At 800 to 1000 ppm, the world faces multiple miseries, including:

1. Sea level rise of 80 feet to 250 feet at a rate of 6 inches a decade (or more).
2. Desertification of one third the planet and drought over half the planet, plus the loss of all inland glaciers.
3. More than 70% of all species going extinct, plus extreme ocean acidification.

"Imagine sea level rise of nearly 20 inches a decade lasting centuries — a trend perhaps interrupted occasionally by large chunks of the West Antarctic ice sheet disintegrating, causing huge sea level jumps in a span of a few years. And imagine that by 2100, we lose all the inland glaciers, which are currently the primary water supply for more than a billion people. Now imagine what future generations will think of us if we let it happen."

But come to think of it, if science doesn't mean anything to you...then showing the results of scientific research won't either...

One further thought. Suppose that its true that "natural processes" over the long run cause more effect on the CO2 rate than humans do (as several have suggested). So, what if natural processes lead to an increase in the CO2 rate to say 800 ppm. If human activity has added another 200 ppm after that, then we would have put ourselves over the edge into extinction, whereas if we had done what we could to reduce emissions, maybe we would have survived. People's arguments on natural CO2 processes always seem to imagine them in opposition to the effect of human activity but they are just as likely to synergize and more rapidly increase the impact of human caused emissions.

[Pineedles]

I have pulled some excerpts from an an article in Carbon Offsets Daily. You can find lots of information out there, no matter which side of the arguement you are on, but 30,000 scientists? Come on! They went out of their way to sign a petition!

Here's the link.

http://www.carbonoffsetsdaily.com/ca...woes-15421.htm

It may be of interest to you to know that over 30,000 scientists have signed a petition which denies that human- produced CO2 or any other greenhouse gas is causing or will cause dangerous warming of the planet.

What does the evidence actually show? The global temperature record starts in 1856 showing a warming trend until 1880 then cooling until 1910; warming again until 1942, then cooling until 1975 (scientists were concerned we were heading for an ice age); warming again until 1998 and currently cooling again.

All of this while CO2 was steadily increasing in the atmosphere.

Where is the correlation? Surely if the UN theory is right, temperatures should show an increasing rise along with CO2; it simply is not there. Furthermore with CO2 currently increasing at roughly two parts per million per year, temperatures certainly should not be dropping now as they are.

We should be seeing an alarming increase but it is simply not there. This brief period of history completely destroys the whole man-made global warming scenario being caused by human CO2 output. It also destroys the current computer-climate models as none of them predicted the current situation.

[Pineedles]

You are right about the volcanoes. I researched my statement and I was wrong. But if you hadn't posted a bunch of facts and figures I wouldn't have gone in pusuit of my own. I guess I was trying to find some middle ground with my first post, but you wouldn't have any of it. Nobody is going to convince anyone of anything here on the forum and we can go back and forth with mountains of "evidence". Bottom line is, you think the world is coming to an end and I don't. Without my cooperation, your scenario is going to come true according to you. Guess what? The harder you push the more I'll push back.

[jmen24]

Originally Posted by chipj29

And don't forget about Greenland. No, not the town in NH, but the country up north. Currently covered under a sheet of ice. You may be asking yourself "Why would anyone name a country that is buried under ice Greenland?". Well, the answer should be clear...Greenland has not always been covered by ice. Back when it was Green, there were very few humans (if any at all) influencing the climate in any way. Interesting, eh?

The story I have heard about the naming of Greenland goes more like this. When the Vikings discovered Greenland and Iceland they reversed the names of the two islands to prevent any other Europeans from discovering the better of the two, Iceland. This information came to me via a world history paper in college, it could be wrong.

But remember, when undiscovered land masses were discovered by humans that had the technology to build a boat and sail accross the pond, the climate was not much different than today. I believe the reference to Greenland at one point being green would be correct, but the time period would be well beyond the reach of even old world science. They were not doing core samples back then either.

[Dickie B from HB]

Shed , you have really drunk the kool aid.

[This'nThat]

Originally Posted by jmen24

The story I have heard about the naming of Greenland goes more like this. When the Vikings discovered Greenland and Iceland they reversed the names of the two islands to prevent any other Europeans from discovering the better of the two, Iceland. This information came to me via a world history paper in college, it could be wrong.

Hmmmmmm. I wonder if the same guys who discovered and named those two islands also worked for the Public Works department to name Driveways (where you park your car) and Parkways (where you drive your car)?

Or perhaps their names were Abbott and Costello?

[NoBozo]

I really get BORED with Too LONG posts that just ...Go ON..... And ON..... And ON. This happens from both sides of an argument. If you can't make your point in a couple of paragraphs.......................Brevity is...

I admire SHED for digging up the TRUTH about Seaplane Permissions on Pickerel Pond.....And posting his findings....essentially canceling his original premis. It takes a Man to do that. ....SHED: What's come over you..?? Nb