Global Warming or Over Population - Earths Biggest Threat?

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
Real easy question to answer.

Becuase Global warming will negativly affect you for the reasons you have already stated and more.
You are right. It is a easy question to answer. The hard part is for you to understand the ramifications of it
What are the ramifications and do you have any time frames when these ramifications may occur? You don't even have to be specific, just your best educated guess.

If we do absolutely nothing, how much more time on this rock do we have?
 

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
Carbon credits are a stupid idea. Like most republican ideas
Yeah, I never understand. If a plant is polluting the local ponds, charge them on a federal level... Dumb Dumb Dumb. So glad the pubs (other than the McCain type) dropped that idea.

Why did the dems pick it up after the pubs dropped it? It was obviously a bad idea, you admitted this yourself?

Between this and the individual mandates it's like the dems picked up the worst rejected pub plans they could find. Oh, and putting the Patriot Act on steroids was a nice touch, another terrible pub idea picked up by dems and supercharged. WTF man?
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Still a scam. Hard to call people zealots, who are just trying to be left alone by a bunch of hairbrained (also correct by the way) Eco-Loons with a manufactured crisis
you're a zealot.

you disregard science, you think demonstrably true scientific facts are all a manufactured hoax (recall how you thought the same thing about polling data last year, idiot), and now you are parroting nearly verbatim the latest and greatest idiocy from the deniers: global warming will be a good thing!

you are obstinately devoted to your own, factless opinions on the issue, you have a horrible track record with even simple science, and you are unwilling to let any fact change your mind.

that's beyond zealot, that's cult-like thinking from you.
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
the current polar vortex would never have made it this far south if it weren't for the melting at the ice caps..there is less mass..mountain-type glaciers gone..this is my opinion
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
the current polar vortex would never have made it this far south if it weren't for the melting at the ice caps..there is less mass..mountain-type glaciers gone..this is my opinion
but there's a large area of thin ice, so we're fine.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
if worst comes to worst, we can just light a whole bunch of forest fires to cause global cooling and the ice caps will come back.

a republican told me it would work, and i trust them.

when has a republican ever been wrong?
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
demonstrably false.

why are you such an idiot?
Demonstrable true....not about the idiot question. :) Did you not read the postings from the UN Climate Commission? Here is a bit of it from my photo folder.

.pause.jpg

Believe me, this is an ever changing Climate discovery process, via the Method. We don't know much and it is beyond vastly complex. It may be beyond our power to measure all the variables.

To me, just because some power brokers in North Europe can't stand the heat, an Industry against Big Oil has come into being.

It is just like this. Science discovers that Snakes do, indeed, have oil in them. And you can get that rendered into a bottle with not much effort. Smells unique. Tastes horrible.

Science never said it was a cure all. They never said anything like that. But, Snake Oil is profitable and people are gullible. Everyone knows this.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Demonstrable true...
how many record hot years have we had in these last 15 years that global warming has been stalled?

go ahead and answer now.

remember, you were among the skewed polls crowd and i have the posts to prove it.
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
the current polar vortex would never have made it this far south if it weren't for the melting at the ice caps..there is less mass..mountain-type glaciers gone..this is my opinion
Well, that may be correct. This seems to be what happens with the vortex gets a tiny bit warmer and destabilizes. But, no big glaciers at this pole. No land at all.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/heres-polar-vortex-thats-hitting-180509394.html

The spinning winds typically trap this cold air in the Arctic. But the problem comes when the polar vortex weakens or splits apart, essentially flinging these cold wind patterns out of the Arctic and into our backyards. NOAA scientists have suggested that warming temperatures in the Arctic may be responsible for the weakening of the polar vortex. When the vortex weakens, it's more likely to break apart and become a factor in our winter weather.

A 2009 vortex breakdown drove temperatures in parts of the Midwest down to -22F. Here's a NASA illustration of the polar vortex (left) and it splitting in two (right):

----------------

What I think is interesting and why the PUBS are not a well tuned, voting block, is those Loudpieces, are saying the idea of a Polar Vortex is a liberal Hoax.

That is stupid, Rush Limbaugh. Everyone should become a little more interested in Science and less about the politics, I think.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2014/01/06/what-is-this-polar-vortex-that-is-freezing-the-u-s/
 

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
remember, you were among the skewed polls crowd and i have the posts to prove it.
Also remember, there's precisely ONE person among us who thinks those posts are pertinent. He also dismisses his past miscalculations and blunders as irrelevant because they aren't as colossal, also decided by him. It truly is a pathetic display of narcissistic OCD.
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
how many record hot years have we had in these last 15 years that global warming has been stalled?

go ahead and answer now.

remember, you were among the skewed polls crowd and i have the posts to prove it.
I will answer. Are you that guy behind me, on the diving board that yells jump@! Jump! as I am getting my toes set? :)

There have been record hot and record cold set all over the world recently. I just posted some of it. We are setting record cold right now, in the USA. But, this is global, remember? And N. EU is setting some heat records, year over year, lately. But, no where else. Italy had record cold last year.

Now Buck, if you can produce anything where I predicted Mitty would win, I will eat a 1/4 gram of your best hash.

No. I voted against the DEMS again. That's all. Do I regret? {paaahhh} Do I like the way this one has done his job? No. That is true for all of them. I don't like watching the wielding of power. Is he as good as Woodrow Wilson? Sure. Probably better.

So, I know you have your cutlery out sharpening up for this next contest. You've got your quote folder prepared from a couple of years ago, so we can all have the Merry Chase, this summer. I enjoy that. :)

And I don't mind eating crow...er hash, if I have to.
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
OK, thinking for myself again, how about this. The climate is just a fraction of the Earth's energy budget that stretches our imagination.

We know that volcanoes can increase albedo and cool the planet. News today is one blew in Indonesia this week and will certainly release enough sulfur dioxide to reduced the temperature of the planet, a fraction of a degree for a few weeks. So, point 1. I never did get the idea of, clouding over produces a "greenhouse" effect.

That itself has never been shown in math, cannot be modeled with any real data set, much less proven. "Greenhouse effect" is the first big Snake Oil lie. We don't know the variables. Any "evidence" from 75 million years ago is somewhat meaningless. What happened to Venus? Same thing. Come on.

1- Greenhouse effect is not even a Theory. That is where it became derailed.

But, let us say, the surface is warming, but not the oceans, a good thing. There seems to be some evidence for that. There does seem to be Some surface warming.

We have talked about the idea that vapor exchange from a warming ocean surface has a cooling effect on the water and a cloud effect in the atmosphere.
Early clouding in the fall from the warmer air leads to wide, but not deep spreading sea ice. More reflective surface, more cooling.

2 - Balance is maintained in this vast sub-system of the Budget.

What about the land? If the land is heating perhaps the underground temperature in mines and caves is rising. This is called the geothermal gradient, I find. And thinking about it, I look it up, and sure enough.

A variation in surface temperature induced by climate changes and the Milankovitch cycle can penetrate below the Earth's surface and produce an oscillation in the geothermal gradient with periods varying from daily to tens of thousands of years and an amplitude which decreases with depth and having a scale depth of several kilometers.[SUP][19][/SUP][SUP][20][/SUP] Melt water from the polar ice caps flowing along ocean bottoms tends to maintain a constant geothermal gradient throughout the Earth's surface.[SUP][19][/SUP]

Well, well. As I suspected. What about the land heating? Oscillations of the entire Gradient. OK, my patient readers, what does all this have to do with volcanoes and balancing the Energy Budget for the ball of Earth we sit on?

I was thinking that surface temperature increase, can trigger increased vulcanism. I was unsure of a mechanism. Oscillations? 1000 year disturbances? Volcanoes are the balance mechanism of the vast, land sub-system, of the Budget?

The point is, this is not about us, and the balancing on land tends to be rather dramatic, and now we know, can come without warning. So, I looked up what is the prediction for the amount or Sulfur Dioxide released by a supervolcano like Yellowstone....a bit over due, btw. Perhaps an oscillation does just the right jiggle. We won't know when.

That Yellowstone explosion would release enough Sulfur Dioxide and dust to cool the Earth 16F for 2 decades before it begins to clear. Balance solved.

We would not live see the other side, but it would be balanced.
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
The globe is warming, we are contributing would be more accurate Canndo. It's never been established we are doing it, in fact, it's been scientifically established that we are in a natural warming period. The consensus is, we are making it worse.

Your hyperbole is an example that the skeptics and deniers point to and easily disproves. This just gives ammunition.

Seems like philosophy is guiding your statements now doesn't it. Seems there is more than just truth and lies, there is also unintended misinformation.

It should also be noted that every one of the 104 models published by the IPCC overshot predictions. Everyone made the same mistake and were less accurate with temperature predictions than the Farmer's Almanac. These are climatologist, temps is grade school stuff to these guys. Yet you only accept that one side has an agenda.


Why is that?
Then let us make and addendum to the mantra.

There is no global warming
If there is, we are not causing it
If it is warming, we are only contributing to it
If we are causing it there is nothing we can do about it
If it is warming, it is good for the planet and it's inhabitants.

Oh, and the best of all - it has been cooling all this time.


The point is, that if we are merely, it cannot be measured any more than if we are causing it.

The issue is that the green house effect is a fact, it is observed, it is real
We have added a significant amount of greenhouse gasses

Odds are high that we are instrumental in that greenhouse gas effect.

but let's get more reasonable.

1. Mankind has shown a propensity and ability to alter the entire planet - a given.
2. the earth, in it's natural course has sequestered tens or hundreds of millions of years worth of carbon
3. we are releasing all that carbon over only 100's of years

Those are the facts, irrefutable and concrete. the speculation is the extent that our release of tens or hundreds of millions of years of carbon over a few decades has any effect upon the planet.

reason indicates that something abrupt will happen.

What I have trouble with is the left moaning about the destruction of the planet, the planet, except for it's ability to support US, is of no concern. If we pass into oblivion because of our actions, not only will the earth restore itself but we won't be there to care if it does not.

If our way of life as a species is disrupted, then future generations will have the supreme opportunity to blame us - and again, we just won't care, if we manage to survive then we will do so in a different way and what we lack in wisdom we make up for in perserverence.

But we could make things a bit more pleasant if we wanted to.

I think it wise,you don't.
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
Wrong. No and no. Greenhouse Effect cannot be even modeled on a planetary scale. We ice up in the computer models. And we can see evidence that we have Iced up completely at least one time before. The age of the hot damp climate or whatever was when the continents were together. Pangea or some such. The conditions are no longer present, even if that was caused by "gasses" in the atmosphere. All of Science knows this. All of Popular Science is for pulling in Money.

That is all very inconvenient, indeed. And to me, it makes, Greenhouse Effect the false god, of the Climate Cry Babies. :)
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
Well, that may be correct. This seems to be what happens with the vortex gets a tiny bit warmer and destabilizes. But, no big glaciers at this pole. No land at all.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/heres-polar-vortex-thats-hitting-180509394.html

The spinning winds typically trap this cold air in the Arctic. But the problem comes when the polar vortex weakens or splits apart, essentially flinging these cold wind patterns out of the Arctic and into our backyards. NOAA scientists have suggested that warming temperatures in the Arctic may be responsible for the weakening of the polar vortex. When the vortex weakens, it's more likely to break apart and become a factor in our winter weather.

A 2009 vortex breakdown drove temperatures in parts of the Midwest down to -22F. Here's a NASA illustration of the polar vortex (left) and it splitting in two (right):

----------------

What I think is interesting and why the PUBS are not a well tuned, voting block, is those Loudpieces, are saying the idea of a Polar Vortex is a liberal Hoax.

That is stupid, Rush Limbaugh. Everyone should become a little more interested in Science and less about the politics, I think.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2014/01/06/what-is-this-polar-vortex-that-is-freezing-the-u-s/
exactly doer.. something has shifted and as a result those vortex are breaking apart..hurricanes break apart when they hit mountainous land area..
 
Top