Global Warming

[ace85]

Other leading scientists agree the Atlantic Basin and Gulf Coast regions are being battered by a severe hurricane phase that could persist for another 20 years or more. But they believe that a natural environmental cycle is responsible rather than any human-induced change, and they point to what they consider to be large gaps in the global warming analysis conducted by a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.


"Maybe a connection here is yet to be clearly established, but it is also yet to be ruled out," said Terry Richardson, a physicist at the College of Charleston in South Carolina on CCNet, a British climate blog.

This obviously means we should start crippling economies.

The past 10 years have been the most active hurricane seasons on record, and many researchers say the trend could persist for another 20 years or more. They believe it's a consequence of natural salinity and temperature change in the Atlantic's deep current circulation -- elements that shift back and forth every 40-60 years.

 

[Ilovethemall]

it's a tough call

The recorded data only goes back 250 years, which on a geological time scale is a nanosecond. Then fact is that the planet goes through cycles and we don't know diddly about them - yes, fossil records and sediment deposits tell us some things but not the whole story.

Having said that, if we continue to pump greenhouses gasses into the environment, we would be foolish not to expect this to have some effect. If teh planet is truly warming on it's own, then we may be hastening this or amplifying it.

It won't be some altruistic desire that will save the planet from us, it will $10/gallon gas that will promote hybrid cars and alternative fuels sources for industry.

The funny part? As the west switches to alternative fuels, this will drive the cost of pretoleum down, which will suit growing economies like India and China and instead of us, it will be them that pollute the planet. Although with the heat waves in India, you would hope they would get the message even sooner than we do.

 

[ace85]

North America because of Climate Alone

Will be in need of the fossil fuels longer than most other populated areas.

Comparing canada to any european country is silly our geography is huge in comparisson we need cheep fuel for vehicles.

Saying gas is so much cheaper than Britan or europe is silly. I have to drive 10 x more than the average european.

 

[ace85]

When the Planet starts cooling and it will

we will be looking for artifical ways to heat it back up.

 

[Ilovethemall]

heat it up?

Fuck no man, it will be the best few ski seasons on record!!!

 

[JustAGuy]

Thanks for reminding that there is no such thing as global warming. Periodically, my zany radical brain thinks there actually might be consequences from mankind pouring toxins into the ocean and pollutants into the air, all the while demolishing rain forests that have stood untouched for millennia. It's refreshing to know that it's nothing I need to trouble my little bald head about.

 

[Ilovethemall]

lack of hair

It's our mutual lack of hair that will stop global warming as our balding skulls reflect the sunlight like the glaciers used to!!

Save the planet, shave your head!

 

[ace85]

Based on your Sarcasm

Thanks for reminding that there is no such thing as global warming. Periodically, my zany radical brain thinks there actually might be consequences from mankind pouring toxins into the ocean and pollutants into the air, all the while demolishing rain forests that have stood untouched for millennia. It's refreshing to know that it's nothing I need to trouble my little bald head about.

I don't doubt you have a little bald head.

I am not arguing that the GLOBE Isn't Warming. IT is. I am just of the mind that our influence on GLOBAL WARMING is a little less than we want to beleive.

Now as far as the environment goes. Where have I said that I support pollution or that I live an environmentally unfriendly life style. Just becasue I don't beleive we are the root cause of environmental changes that are way bigger than us. I live a very enviromentally friendly lifestyle. I just sit on the side of the fence with 35% of the scientists not 65%.

I just don't think that bankrupting economies and punishing the world powers that will actually lead the greatest charge to repair things is the right way to go. Kyoto is the tail wagging the dog. And that is a big recipie for problems.

Action for the Sake of Action is Wasted Action.

Lets get rid of "green house gases" to save the enviroment might be the wrong way to go. Filling the world with clean Nuclear power plants might have longer term negative effects.

 

[rockyy]

Earth's changing magnetic field

The recorded data only goes back 250 years, which on a geological time scale is a nanosecond.

Yes, and more significant by far is the potential reversing of the earth's magentic field. Apparently volcanologists have gotten accurate readings of that by studying ancient lava flows. From this they've determined that such reversals (where magnetic north becomes magnetic south) tend to occur every 300k years, and we're due for one now.

What they don't know is what effect this has on climate (among other things), since we weren't around to study the last one that occured.

Fascinatin' huh?

 

[JustAGuy]

Filling the world with clean Nuclear power plants might have longer term negative effects.

Thanks for giving us a new example of an oxymoron, Ace. "Clean nuclear power plants" may not quite rival "jumbo shrimp", but it's still pretty good.

 

[ace85]

http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=1&catid=11

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.02/nuclear.html

I am not the one inventing the term JUST a NOT SMART GUY.

 

[thehaggler]

my grandpa says there is no such thing as gloabl warming, he';s old so it must be true

 

[wolverine]

So why is cutting down on pollution considered a bad thing?

 

[Herb_The_Perb]

Saying gas is so much cheaper than Britan or europe is silly. I have to drive 10 x more than the average european.

Have to, or choose to?
If gas were $5/liter, how would you adjust?
And if it were $10, then what?
$20?

 

[festealth]

remember, there is still no evidence of global warming. the temperature of this planet has been rising since the 1500's when it was at it's coldest (within modern time). the correlation of more CO2 and higher temperature is like comparing bald seniors men with married seniors men, correlates, but being married doesn't cause baldness (though some might argue that, lol ). but knowing the greenhouse model, we can say we are not helping the problem.
global warming isn't like the entire arctic regions melting and the forests turning into deserts, the average temperature during the ice age is only like 4 (can't remember exact number) degrees cooler than nowadays. hearing from somewhere that places on the planet is actually cooler than previously before, NC unable to grow oranges anymore, and more snow on antarctica than 10 years back.
anyways, enough yabbering for me, thanks.

 

[Maury Beniowski]

We live on a much cleaner planet than we used to. The amount of particulates expelled into the atmosphere by natural occurences, is much greater than we humans could ever achieve. Environmental bogeymen abound, and continue to recite their mantras in hopes of being financially supported by confused and frightened special interest groups and poll worshipping governments.

But don't listen to me; continue to send your precious dollars to Greenpeace.

 

[wilde]

Saying gas is so much cheaper than Britan or europe is silly. I have to drive 10 x more than the average european.

Then you should pay 10x more you silly. Or do you think that because you choose to drive more you should get a discount?

 

[ace85]

Then you should pay 10x more you silly. Or do you think that because you choose to drive more you should get a discount?

Are you retarded.

The issues with Gas prices in Canada versus BRITAN are much more related to TAXATION and dependency on the fuel.

People might fill up once a month in Britan. Canada is a big place, and just by the nature of the geography and the realities of business, Canada is much more dependent on Gasoline that Britan or other European countires.

I am not asking for a discount, but the rampant taxation on gasoline in Canada underthe guise of "at least it isn't as bad as europe" is a poor argument.

Canada is a net consumer of processed gasoline (as you might have trouble with big words) that means we import more than we produce. This is a big issue as we are one of the most dependent nations on Gasoline (geography and population density). This is a problem, because based simply on wolrd prices puts Canada at a competitive disadvantage.

Canada would be well served to increase our gasoline production capabilites, such that we can then provide cheaper gasoline into our ecomomy.

 

[Maury Beniowski]

Gasoline prices are not set by our ability to produce more. These are set by oil market organizations that are not even in Canada. That is why Alberta is experiencing such a windfall; their cost is much lower than the World standard. The retail price of gas at the pump in Canada could actually be cut in half if the cost of production and a reasonable profit were considered. But we are "forced" to charge "international" rates pegged by the New York Mercantile Exchange, the International Petroleum Exchange in London and the Singapore International Monetary Exchange. OPEC no longer plays a part in setting world prices. Canada is a net producer of oil, unlike the US who is a net consumer. In 2001, Canada produced 379M tonnes of oil, but only consumed 248M tonnes, whereas the US produced 1,712M tonnes, but consumed 2,281M tonnes. (The Economist)

 

[georgebushmoron]

Gasoline prices are not set by our ability to produce more. These are set by oil market organizations that are not even in Canada. That is why Alberta is experiencing such a windfall; their cost is much lower than the World standard. The retail price of gas at the pump in Canada could actually be cut in half if the cost of production and a reasonable profit were considered. But we are "forced" to charge "international" rates pegged by the New York Mercantile Exchange, the International Petroleum Exchange in London and the Singapore International Monetary Exchange. OPEC no longer plays a part in setting world prices. Canada is a net producer of oil, unlike the US who is a net consumer. In 2001, Canada produced 379M tonnes of oil, but only consumed 248M tonnes, whereas the US produced 1,712M tonnes, but consumed 2,281M tonnes. (The Economist)

Good quote Maury!

But I disagree that we live on a much cleaner planet than we used to. The toxins that have accumulated do not suddenly disappear nor do they decompose. They are still there. We may be polluting less than we used to, but I doubt that too. As we become more energy-efficient, suppliers in the market produce consumer goods that do more with their energy-efficiency, with the end result of total energy spent being more than what was saved due to greater efficiency. Energy spent has a high correlation to environmental pollution.

Many like to point out that there is no direct evidence of Global Warming. Determining evidence of such a grand phenomena in the environment is surely difficult, especially because there are many variables involved; it is not like you could easily determine cause-and-effect as you would in a controlled laboratory. The motivation for pointing out that there is no evidence of Global Warming is as suspect as the claim that it exists. But at least those who claim that it exists are motivated by forewarning of impending environmental disaster due to understanding that it must keep a delicate balance, whereas those who focus on the lack of direct evidence are probably motivated by the desire to continue wasteful or polluting practices.

I say when it comes to shared resources, such as the clean air or drinkable water, it is wise to use caution and heed realistic warnings even if not backed by 100% provable evidence. To wait until there is concrete evidence before taking action will only result in action too late and damage already done; it is as foolish as stating that you need evidence that smoking will with 100% certainty give you lung cancer - and in the meantime continue smoking until evidence can be presented.