G oog le BadWeB | Login/out | Topics | Search | Custodians | Register | Edit Profile

Buell Forum » Quick Board Archives » Archive through August 18, 2009 » I feel global warming when i fly » Archive through August 14, 2009 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Buellinachinashop
Posted on Thursday, August 13, 2009 - 04:46 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

If global warming means that all the bikinis worn in Brazil will make their way up here to Milwaukee, I'm all for killing off some dinosaurs.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

P_squared
Posted on Thursday, August 13, 2009 - 04:49 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

Low pH stresses calcifying organisms primarily by making it harder for them to obtain sufficient carbonate to deposit skeletons.

So low pH stresses them, potentially preventing calcification?

And how do you lower the pH? Add carbon dioxide.

Some problems I see with this line of reasoning in regards to blaming anthropogenic carbon dioxide from your reefkeeping link:
1. A pH value of about 7.4-7.6 is required for reefs to begin to start collapsing, e.g. a negative net calcification. We’re above 8.0 currently.
2. Current insights indicate that corals first appeared during the Permian era. Hermatypic, or reef-building corals are believed to have arisen during the Triassic period. I believe both periods have a higher level of carbon dioxide than the current ~350 ppm.
3. It appears that solar winds have a greater input to carbon dioxide than anthropogenic input. (source: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/tempCO2_vs_solwind.html)

input


4. It appears that attempting to equate manmade influence as the cause is misguided based on the amount. (source: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_contrib.html)

anthro


Used to be republicans were the party of natural conservancy.
I’m all for natural conservancy. I grew up in the country, farming, ranching & hunting. I’m just a bit skeptical of some of the “CRISIS!!! EMERGENCY!!! GLOOM & DOOM!!!” type of claims being made in an effort to gain power & money. I hope you can understand & respect that.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Corporatemonkey
Posted on Thursday, August 13, 2009 - 05:54 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

"What is interesting is the Northwest passage has usually been frozen solid year round."

That is inaccurate.


Let me clarify my statement. The Northwest passage has been frozen for vessels that are NOT ice strengthened.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/09/07 0917-northwest-passage.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2006/11/04/AR2006110401173.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-04-03-nwpa ssage-debate_x.htm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/15/tech/mai n3263931.shtml

I could go on.

But the bottom line is the fact a fiberglass yacht is able to transit through the NW Passage is a bit concerning...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sifo
Posted on Thursday, August 13, 2009 - 06:13 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

The NW passage was first sailed over 100 years ago. During that time period there was far less arctic ice than we have come to call "normal". There are historical records going further back in time showing that this is cyclical in nature.

As Greenland is going through it's "unprecedented melting" we are seeing abandoned Viking settlements being exposed. These areas were livable prior to the little ice age and are just now being uncovered again. Nothing all that unusual if you really look at history.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

P_squared
Posted on Thursday, August 13, 2009 - 06:15 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

But the bottom line is the fact a fiberglass yacht is able to transit through the NW Passage is a bit concerning...

Maybe. Maybe not. If it's PROVEN to be caused by human action, then I'd worry. If it's cyclic, which it appears to be, then I'm not as worried about it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Corporatemonkey
Posted on Thursday, August 13, 2009 - 06:27 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

If it's PROVEN to be caused by human action, then I'd worry. If it's cyclic, which it appears to be, then I'm not as worried about it.

I am not here to debate whether it is man made or not. What I am saying it is happening.

So much of modern human existence is dependent on things staying in balance. Be it water levels, rain fall totals, coastal shorelines, or extreme weather patterns.

Last thing I want be on the hook for is the catastrophic insurance losses when coastal communities become inundated with rising water levels.

I have a feeling raising up Manhattan up 10+Ft. is not going to be cheap...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sifo
Posted on Thursday, August 13, 2009 - 06:31 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

But sea levels have been rising for far longer that we have had alleged AGW. The nut jobs know this, they just use it to their favor to create fear.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

P_squared
Posted on Thursday, August 13, 2009 - 07:05 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

So much of modern human existence is dependent on things staying in balance.

Who's "balance"? The "balance" that Mr. Gore & his ilk propose, or the balance the planet itself imposes?

If the changes are cyclic, which they very strongly appear to be, how do you propose to "balance" those changes?

We can't stop hurricanes from slamming into densely populated areas. We can't stop tsunamis from washing over towns after earthquakes. How do you propose to "balance" our environment when we can't stop the force of nature or the weather?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Corporatemonkey
Posted on Thursday, August 13, 2009 - 08:24 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

Who's "balance"? The "balance" that Mr. Gore & his ilk propose, or the balance the planet itself imposes?

If the changes are cyclic, which they very strongly appear to be, how do you propose to "balance" those changes?


Balance we have created with our infrastructure.

I do not have a solution on how to balance anything.

What I am saying is we need to address global warming/climate change/what ever you want to call it as a national security issue.

Between a heavy disaster recovery bill, ala Katrina, or Andrew.

To the cost of the drought in the the SW, Texas, and parts of the SE.

Wildfires out west

The pine beetle in Colorado

That only counts some of the issues in the US.

What about the rest of the globe? China and their "little flood event"

Australia and their epic drought

All of these issues will come back to haunt us financially.
If you look at the insurance industry (worldwide) governments always end up being the payer of last resort. That in itself is a lose lose scenario.

On one hand we can help, and end up bankrupting the system.

Or we can let people twist in the wind, and that would end up like Katrina magnitudes bigger. I don't think anyone here wants to see that again.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Xl1200r
Posted on Thursday, August 13, 2009 - 09:02 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

The global temperature has been rising in general since the last major ice age. History tells us that we are due for the next ice age very shortly in geological terms. Who are we kidding with this BS?

Actually, hisotically, we're just coming OUT of an ice age, and temps SHOULD be RISING.

Some good, new info in here I'm learning. Good stuff.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Blake
Posted on Thursday, August 13, 2009 - 09:20 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

Now we have some excellent debate going. Unfortunately, it's the same excellent debate that we've been repeating. Must be a cyclic phenomenon. LOL
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

P_squared
Posted on Thursday, August 13, 2009 - 09:58 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

What I am saying is we need to address global warming/climate change/what ever you want to call it as a national security issue.

Really? Who's been using their Jedi mind tricks on you?

The saying of "$h!t happens" is applicable here. There will ALWAYS be national disasters. There will ALWAYS be droughts, floods, hurricanes, volcanoes, etc., etc.

How can you "control" or "balance" them?

You CAN'T. The ruse of attempting to tie "climate change" to National Security is just that, a ruse. The goal is to consolidate power & wealth into the hands of the "few". Don't believe me? Then please explain to me how Gore became the poster boy for Global Warming/Climate Change? The blustering buffoon has no degree in any applicable field relating to the topic, but yet gets a Nobel prize, says the science is settled (meaning don't bring up any REAL "inconvenient truths") and stands to be a BILLIONAIRE via his carbon trading ventures.

What p!$$e$ me off the most about this kind of crap is that I grew up as a conservationist. Try managing a farm or a herd of cattle sometime. You learn REAL quick what you can & can't do. If you don't take care of your land, you're out of a livelihood. Now compare that to some snob elitist who wouldn't know the difference between silt & loam if you gave them a handful of each.

Should we recycle? Absolutely
Should we indiscriminately dispose of items that are exceedingly harmful to the environment? Absolutely not
Should we cut our own freakin throats in the name of a religion that's soul purpose is to gain power & money for those at the top? No EFFIN WAY.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gsilvernale
Posted on Thursday, August 13, 2009 - 11:26 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

What's the difference between silt and loam?

What about silty loam?

From wikipedia: Different proportions of sand, silt, and clay give rise to types of loam soils: sandy loam, silty loam, clay loam, sandy clay loam, silty clay loam, and loam.

(Message edited by gsilvernale on August 13, 2009)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Oldog
Posted on Friday, August 14, 2009 - 12:11 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

Unlike the internet Global Warming was invented by Al Gore...


Spidy thanks for the laugh!}
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Diablobrian
Posted on Friday, August 14, 2009 - 12:19 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

Anyone else remember all of the "experts" telling us (in the 70s) that the sky was falling due
to global Cooling?

Since then, less than an eye blink in geological terms, they have reversed themselves
and begun the global warming hysteria.

We need more data! Humans did not cause the last ice age or the following warming cycle.

Remember the ozone hole scare where the earth was going to burn up? Oops! that is
cyclical too.

Both events are connected to sun and orbital cycles is a fairly recent theory IIRC

We don't have enough accurate data to trully understand how all of this works.

Once again modern man and modern science haven't been around long enough to establish
what is or isn't normal cyclical change.

Just like the guys on the corner playing "three card monte" you have to look a
little deeper for whats really going on here before choosing what is usually an emotional
choice. I suggest you follow the money. Who is profiting? who loses? does it match
the players own self interests? Then consider whether you really want to play.

I'm not questioning the sincerity of the global warming folks, just asking that they
back up and smell Al Gore's carbon footprint and see if it passes muster.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hexangler
Posted on Friday, August 14, 2009 - 08:59 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

Here's some more, in TODAY'S news:

"It seems like everywhere we look in Alaska's coastal oceans, we see signs of increased ocean acidification," said Mathis.

Often referred to as the "sister problem to climate change," ocean acidification is a term to describe increasing acidity in the world's oceans. The ocean absorbs carbon dioxide from the air. As the ocean absorbs more carbon dioxide, seawater becomes more acidic. Scientists estimate that the ocean is 25 percent more acidic today than it was 300 years ago.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/09081 3163158.htm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hexangler
Posted on Friday, August 14, 2009 - 09:04 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

Don't tell me how to grow plants...Sheesh, touchy, touchy, only tryin' to help...

KINDA SOUNDED LIKE YOU NEEDED SOME
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ft_bstrd
Posted on Friday, August 14, 2009 - 09:13 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

Global warming is the "spontaneous generation" of our latest generation.


NOTHING we, as humans, do on our planet has anywhere NEAR the impact of solar activity and the varying intensity of solar output.

Strange that as we are seeing global cooling temperatures due to minimal solar activity, MARS is also seeing cooling temperatures due to minimal solar activity.


Global warming is a scam to separate you from your money. The rubes will separate from their cash voluntarily. The rest of us will be forced to transfer our cash.

The longer the debate continues, the weaker the proponents of global warming's argument becomes.

Cap and Tax can't die soon enough.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

P_squared
Posted on Friday, August 14, 2009 - 09:56 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

What's the difference between silt and loam?

What about silty loam?

From wikipedia: Different proportions of sand, silt, and clay give rise to types of loam soils: sandy loam, silty loam, clay loam, sandy clay loam, silty clay loam, and loam.


You answered your own question.

Silt: A sedimentary material consisting of very fine particles intermediate in size between sand and clay.

Loam: Soil composed of a mixture of sand, clay, silt, and organic matter.

Silt Loam: A soil consisting of silt, sand, and clay with the majority of the particles in the silt category.

The "normal" mixture for "plain loam" is 40% sand, 40% silt & 20% clay.

Silt loam typicaly contains ~80% silt with the remaining ~20% of its composition being made up of sand & clay.

I'll warn you now, I grew up at my mom's office when she worked at the SCS, now known as the NRCS. I knows my dirt!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Kyrocket
Posted on Friday, August 14, 2009 - 10:10 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

Kentucky never broke 90 degrees all of July, that hasn't happened since the 70's, and they're trying to tell me we're getting warmer. What a crock.
Another thing I don't get is when the weather man comes on with all his facts and figures I've been noticing the record high is usually back in the 40's or 50's. Explain that.
...and one more thing, I thought a bunch of motorcycle enthusiasts would be all for global warming. I've been thinking about letting my car run all night if I knew I could ride through January.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hexangler
Posted on Friday, August 14, 2009 - 12:56 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

This was an interesting read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration

At the very bottom . . .



Ocean acid neutralisation

Adding crushed limestone[58] or volcanic rock[59] to oceans to restore the solubility pump, which naturally tends to remove excess CO2 from the atmosphere. This technique can give 0.46W/m2 of globally-averaged negative forcing,[12] which is sufficient to reverse the warming effect of around a third of current levels of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Various other scientists have explored this technique, and suggested a variety of different bases which may be added to the ocean.


(Message edited by hexangler on August 14, 2009)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

P_squared
Posted on Friday, August 14, 2009 - 01:55 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

Hex, can I ask why you seem to be hung up on anthropogenic CO2 emissions as the "root cause"?

It is about 0.28% of the total contribution to the Greenhouse effect if water vapor is taken into account. About 5.53%, if not.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data. html

A more thorough debunking of anthropogenic CO2 being the "root cause" of climate change:http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/reproducing -global-temperature.html

A nice pic showing that big, yellow orb in the sky having a measurable effect on temperature & CO2: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/tempCO2_vs_solwi nd.html

I'd be leery of advocating adding limestone or volcanic rock to the oceans when it looks like the vocal majority can't even prove the cause. It's that whole unintended consequences thing that makes me leery. Hope you'll understand.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hexangler
Posted on Friday, August 14, 2009 - 02:42 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

GeoScience will lead to GeoEngineering as long as significant "need" is realized.

If the fisheries near Alaska are realized to benefit from the addition of other anthropogenic additives, will you still question the motivation?

Prosperity is THE goal is it not?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ft_bstrd
Posted on Friday, August 14, 2009 - 02:45 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

The problem is profit from junk science without the benefit of benefit.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

P_squared
Posted on Friday, August 14, 2009 - 02:49 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

Prosperity is THE goal is it not?

Not for me.

I'm more along the lines of "Do no harm."

I've seen too many cases of "well intentioned conservation" cause catastrophe, thus my personal reason for being leery of introducing a manmade "cure" for a malady that looks to not be caused by us.

Interesting case study of "well intentioned conservation" gone bad is Yellowstone. I'd like it if we didn't repeat the lessons learned there on a much wider scale in regards to "managing" the natural environment.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Rick_a
Posted on Friday, August 14, 2009 - 02:53 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

It's all a scare tactic to get money into alternative energies in order to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

That's my theory
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Limitedx1
Posted on Friday, August 14, 2009 - 02:57 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

i think they just like their faces on tv, and especially if they think they are talking about something that the people agree with. im sure they dont mind handout from green peace organizations either....
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hexangler
Posted on Friday, August 14, 2009 - 02:58 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

And another problem is war profiteering...and the monopolization of business sectors.

We could talk at lengths about humankind's shortcomings, specially when resources are involved.

I think we can survive our own waste byproducts if we put our minds to it. And the time to start thinking about it is now.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ft_bstrd
Posted on Friday, August 14, 2009 - 02:58 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

I've seen too many cases of "well intentioned conservation" cause catastrophe

Just look at the BLM's management of forests to see what happens when there is a "no cut" policy on trees or underbrush.

Nature takes it's course, and burns that shit to the ground.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hexangler
Posted on Friday, August 14, 2009 - 03:00 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

Nothing wrong with Green Peace.
« Previous Next »

Topics | Last Day | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Rules | Program Credits Administration