|
|
|
|
crimpinfool
Aug 4, 2002, 6:16 AM
Post #76 of 228
(13209 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2002
Posts: 16
|
To those who do not understand science,
The Law of Gravitation refers to the mathematical gravitational constant, a model that describes and predicts how object A acts upon object B. That is, it describes object behavior, not the causes of those behaviors. This is a subtle but important difference that I hope all of you who have taken a physics class in middle school recognize. The constant does not say what causes the the behavior, it only quantifies the relationship between objects. My point goes to causal attributions. We can formulate a model that predicts global warming and may formally specify its progression, but the question on this post was what causes global warming. We don't know what the proximate cause of object behavior is in the case of gravity. Is gravity a particle wave emitted from objects that has some pulling effect on nearby objects? Perhaps it is non-material? I doubt your physics professor knows the answer to this (like I said, science is full of uncertainty). What we know is that the earth revolves around the sun and a rock from above will fall on my head. In the case of global warming we know that the Earth is warming. The question is whether human activity is an important cause. And an answer to this question will never be 100% certain. If DMON is as earnest in biotechnology as professed, then certainly statistics is part of the curriculum. What they don't tell you in high school is that the reason we use stats is because we DON'T know all the answers. So, again, I return to my original point: If you are hoping for a completely unbiased, doubtless report on global warming, please don't kid yourself.
P.S., DMON may note that the examples of scientific laws he notes are formal (i.e., mathematical) models. Global warming is far more complex than thermal dynamics or gravity in a vacuum.
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 4, 2002, 6:23 AM
Post #77 of 228
(13209 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
crimpinfool...Did you mean causal relationships instead of causal attributions? I understand what you are trying to explain-I actually got an A in physics in college. Thanks for your input on this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 5, 2002, 4:09 AM
Post #78 of 228
(13209 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
Am I talking to myself now? Everybody has left the thread. No response to my Claussen/Pew rebuttal?
|
|
|
|
|
biggernhell
Aug 5, 2002, 8:12 PM
Post #79 of 228
(13209 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2002
Posts: 563
|
Ok Jody, I'm back.
I have no idea if it has been mentioned in this thread yet. But, if you want an impartial view of human effect on global warming you need look no further than President Bush. When he was trying to explain why he wouldn't sign the kyoto accord he said that, yes science did show that the production of green house gases by humans was causing signifigant global warming. He is the president. He does have our best interests in mind right? I'm pretty sure that Dubya doesn't sway toward unsubstantiated claims by environmentalists very often. I mean, hell the only reasin he didn't sign it was because it didn't force developing nations to enact emissions legislation. The fact that the average citizen of a developing nation emits 3 tons of co2 per year while the Average American produces 20 tons is neither here nor there.
[ This Message was edited by: biggernhell on 2002-08-06 10:35 ]
|
|
|
|
|
climber1
Aug 6, 2002, 7:56 PM
Post #80 of 228
(13209 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 5, 2000
Posts: 484
|
Jody,
either you are pretty far out there on the right, or this is a troll. I'm hopin' that your trollin'
|
|
|
|
|
indamtnsbj
Aug 6, 2002, 8:57 PM
Post #81 of 228
(13209 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 16, 2002
Posts: 77
|
Being a degreed Geologist who now works in the oilfield itself, I have views on both sides.
It is a damn shame that the earths glaciers are receding, and anything that we can do to prevent this should be done.
However, the headlines of "Global Warming" are so catchy that many people go off quoting and blaming the burning of fossil fuels for this.
I have read the science reports, and I am still not convinced nor unconvinced that we are influencing the earth's climate.
HOWEVER- Everyone must notice how damn hot is seems to be in the summer, there has been a hell of alot of forest fires lately, and has anyone seen the brown smog in an airplane at 30,000 feet.
Regardless if you think that we are screwing up the climate or not, everybody should pitch in and make an attempt to burn less energy.
Damn guys, turn your A.C. down from 4 to 3 in your car, give somebody a lift, do something to help out.
So, if you dont believe in Global warming, do a little to lessen the smog over Denver, Rio de Janeiro, or where ever you are.
BJ Null
Macae, Brazil
|
|
|
|
|
chrisshaeffer
Aug 6, 2002, 9:27 PM
Post #82 of 228
(13209 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 15, 2002
Posts: 86
|
A little different perspective on the "Global Warming" issue:
The last galcial advance of the most recent Ice Age ended 35,000 years ago. Long time, eh? The glaciers have been retreating and the earth warming ever since.
Even during the Ice Age, however, there were several interglacial stages where the glaciers had retreated further and the earth was warmer than it is today. If I recall correctly, the interglacial stages lasted 60-70,000 years and the longest was 120,000. (My numbers may be a bit off, but you get the idea.)
Possible conclusions?
1) There is no real evidence that the "most recent" Ice Age is even over- we might be in an interglacial period.
2) The current warming trend might have started when stone tools were concidered high tech.
3) Human pollutants MAY be affecting global warming, but no one is really sure how much.
Most people think of the earth as a stable system- and for the most part it is. Our view of "stable", however, can be rather short-sighted compared to the variables involved.
Take care,
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
biggernhell
Aug 6, 2002, 9:37 PM
Post #83 of 228
(13209 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2002
Posts: 563
|
Good point
Scientifically verifiable
Sound
Very little contraversy surrounding it
Pretty much accepted fact at this point
NOT AN EXCUSE TO KEEP ON DOING THINGS THE WAY WE ARE.
Look up at indamtnsbj's post
Global warming is not the only thing to worry about. I like my lungs as well and I promise that the stuff those coal fired powerplants and heavy duty automobile engines are spitting out ain't exactly a warm spring breeze.
[ This Message was edited by: biggernhell on 2002-08-06 14:40 ]
|
|
|
|
|
chrisshaeffer
Aug 6, 2002, 10:28 PM
Post #84 of 228
(13209 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 15, 2002
Posts: 86
|
Hey, biggernhell, was that aimed at me?
No arguments. I'm an environmnetal educator and I work in wildlife conservation. People are definately mucking things up in a variety of ways.
I was just speaking to the issue of the thread. I'm all for reducing industrial and consumer waste and pollution- I just don't shout "global warming!" as a reason for it. I shout a host of other reasons (vanishing biodiversity, habitat loss, low air quality, rising asthma rates, blah, blah, blah...), but was staying on the (main) subject of the thread.
Take care,
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
biggernhell
Aug 6, 2002, 10:41 PM
Post #85 of 228
(13209 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2002
Posts: 563
|
Gotcha
I'm glad to see that someone can manage to stay on topic when it comes to issues like this.
|
|
|
|
|
lightboi
Aug 6, 2002, 11:21 PM
Post #86 of 228
(13209 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 27, 2002
Posts: 109
|
I have neither the education(just a degree in history and theatre) or the resources(damm me for being at work) to cite to make my arguement. But I will make it anyways.
No matter what we as a species do to the planet life will continue. Ice Ages, 20 deg temp swings in 10 years, meteor stirikes, mass extinctions, polar reversals, cold ocean currents stopping, advancing deserts, and the sky falling.
The worst that the human race can do is make the planet unhabitable for US. Life will continue here just as it has for millions of years. Evuloution works.
Lets put a date ot 20,000 years for Humans living in orgainised groups, that lead to cities, nations, SUV's. A 20K sample from 35 million means nothing. 5000 yeas of written history means even less when looking at this same time frame. I remember from a geology class that the Appalation Mountains were once higher then the Hymilaya Mountains, was there ever a save the Appalation Range from erosion commitee?
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Aug 6, 2002, 11:50 PM
Post #87 of 228
(13209 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
To quote if I may, climber 1 "Jody,
either you are pretty far out there on the right, or this is a troll. I'm hopin' that your trollin'"
I need to take issue with the hypothesis that any who dare to differ from the view of the left must therefore be far out on the right.
I have seen nothing in Jodys postings so far that would represent the views of someone on the far right.
Please people keep the insults out of this debate and simply debate the facts without resorting to hurling broad insulting generalisations.
To insinuate that perhaps someone could be on the far right is quite unfair.
I`ve been following this thread and find it highly entertaining and informative. Refreshing really as we have a fairly biased media here in Oz and a Government which is siding with the US on not signing the Kyoto Protocols. Of course the left of Oz politics is screaming blue murder but I`m with the guvmint on this one.
I can see that this protocol is a way for the environmental lobby to fund itself at the expense of the rest of us. No you say, it`ll never happen, huh, just watch if the protocol ever did get signed.
The devil is in the detail so they say and this protocol has a very nasty sting in its detail. Try taxing all carbon emissions by industry for a start, of course the developing world has been exempted so why wouldn`t they vote for it and sign. Sheesh gimme a break.
I`m still with Jody on this one and I love to see sound science debated rather than the trite politique of the environment lobby.
...Phil...
|
|
|
|
|
biggernhell
Aug 7, 2002, 1:05 AM
Post #88 of 228
(13209 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2002
Posts: 563
|
Good post philbox
If you guys want to see The human affect on global warmiong as debaitable I'll go with that.
I don't see what this right or left business has to do with anything. It is just another way to particize people and get them at one anothers throats without solving the problems at hand.
As far as kyoto being a way to fund the environmental lobby at our expense, hasn't big business been susidized at the expense of the American pulic for quite a while any way. At least the environmental lobby would put the money toward helping the environment as opposed to either hoarding it for themselves or using it to make more money. Then having more money and being even bigger business they need more subsides and tax breaks. That way they can make even more money and become bigger and need even more subsides and tax breaks. Then when they go around like this long enough they end up like the legendary Indonesian Concentric bird and fly in ever tightening circles until they dissapear up their own ass.
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 9, 2002, 4:44 PM
Post #89 of 228
(13209 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
I found this little tidbit on a website recently:
"World Heads for Warmest Year Yet" ? (3 Aug 02)
This was the dramatic headline from Reuters quoting British `weather experts'. They declared "The first six months of the year have been the second-warmest ever and average global temperatures in 2002 could be the highest ever recorded, British weather experts said." This claim is of course based on surface thermometers in cities, and in third world jurisdictions where meteorological exactness is not exactly high on their agendas.
So, it's cold shower time again.
Here is global mean temperature as measured by the only accurate way - from US satellites, giving the world an even spread without errors from heat islands and sub-standard records from non-OECD countries.
It shows the temperature of the lower atmosphere for the first 6 months of each year since satellite measurement began in 1979. As is clear from the graph, 1998 stands out loud and clear as the warmest, caused by the big El Niño of that year. 2002 is way, way behind 1998 and is similar to 1991.
There would have to be a humungous global heatwave to overtake 1998 at this late stage in the year and the chances of that happening are almost zero. So the `British experts' are really just making a wild leap of wishful thinking.
And has 2002 been as warm as they claim? We have more sea ice than ever around the Antarctic, trapping several ships at times, and one of them now stuck for months. The Northwest Passage has not so far opened this year. Record-breaking low temperatures hit the US mid-west and eastern states in May this year, while south-eastern Australia had the coolest summer in decades. They even had snow in South Africa recently. Peru was hit by severe cold. Even Britain, where these self-styled `experts' reside, is having a rotten cold, wet summer this year. Some places were admittedly warmer than usual, such as the US southwest, but all that evens out on a global basis.
So it's stretching credulity to claim that 2002 has been especially warm so far, certainly nothing on the scale of 1998.
But then, all this is not about science - it's about politics and the Green offensive against governments still wavering over ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. The European Union has done so already - turkeys voting for an early Christmas.
[ This Message was edited by: jmlangford on 2002-08-10 18:13 ]
[ This Message was edited by: jmlangford on 2002-08-10 18:16 ]
[ This Message was edited by: jmlangford on 2002-08-10 18:17 ]
|
|
|
|
|
howitzer
Aug 9, 2002, 5:16 PM
Post #90 of 228
(13209 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 5, 2002
Posts: 2511
|
I've watched this forum for a while now, and it has been very entertaining to me as well. As a geologist, my scientist side tells me that warming is indeed a natural trend when the Earth exits an ice age - that is what we are doing. The last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago. It takes a while, but after the ice age ends a warming trend begins. It has to do with where the Earth is in its orbit - and the fact that the Earth's orbit fluctuates and at times is closer to the Sun. That causes warming, the opposite causes cooling and thus ice ages. What will this mean for the future of humans? We don't know as 'civilized' humans have not lived through an ice age or the warming times. We've lived in the comfortable intermittent period. Is there a current temperature increase entirely due to human behavior? possibly, but not very likely. As others have said this planet is very resilient and will endure past what we have done to it. Life will go on past humans. That does not mean we do whatever we want to the planet without reaping the consequences. But the consequences of what we are doing are indeed very short-term in terms of the Earth and its history. The dinosaurs had their 100 million years, humans will likely have a lot less than that. The fact of the matter is humans have grown used to 'owning' this planet we live on and using it for whatever we want. That isn't a trend you will see this race giving up - no matter what facts and figures you throw at us.
I think this forum points out an important fact: this is why environmentalism and environmental policy are such hard areas to lobby and defend. There is too much playing with numbers and speculation to make any SOLID arguments using facts that are fabricated based on attempting to forsee the future. It's a tough game.
Good info. from that article, Jody! ESPECIALLY interesting since this year is an EL NINO year that is known (by fact and observation) to cause ABNORMAL WARMING around the globe!!!
interesting....
|
|
|
|
|
howitzer
Aug 9, 2002, 5:50 PM
Post #91 of 228
(13209 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 5, 2002
Posts: 2511
|
A good link to follow up! http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html
|
|
|
|
|
wetrocks
Aug 9, 2002, 7:26 PM
Post #92 of 228
(13209 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2002
Posts: 102
|
What have I been thinking all this time. I feel like such a tit for trying to lead a lifesytle that won't adversely affect the planet. Thanx for showing me the error of my ways.
If those bloody scientists can't prove with 100% certainty that we're affecting the climate than screw them. From now on I'm taking the easy way out....denying that we contribute to climate change. That's right we're innocent I tell you. Turn up that A/C, rev those V-8's, burn that fossil fuel...who cares it doesn't have any impact!
What a pile of s--t.
|
|
|
|
|
fisaacs
Aug 9, 2002, 7:48 PM
Post #93 of 228
(13209 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2002
Posts: 67
|
insofar as that whole SUV thing goes, there are so many reasons to get rid of the things, that you don't need global warming.
SUV Drivers, ask yourselves the following questions:
What percentage of the time it is driven does your SUV go into 4wd?
What percentage of the time your SUV is driven do you have more than one person in your SUV? More than 5 if the SUV holds that many? How frequently is it filled to capacity with passengers?
It's one thing to drive your explorer loaded to the hilt with friends and gear to the crag over terrain that demands 4WD. Its another to own a soprano's edition Navigator that never leaves town and regularly holds 3 people or less.
Its not the suv's that are bad, its the way people use them.
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 9, 2002, 8:02 PM
Post #94 of 228
(13209 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
Wetrocks...I have said this before and I guess I'll say it again. How far are YOU willing to go to "walk the talk". If you are 100% honest with yourself, you will...1:Stop wearing clothes(takes industry to produce them), 2:Get rid of any kind of manufactured transportation(no, no bicycles either, they're made out of metal, rubber, etc. and getting those products "ruins the environment", 3:You will go live off the land somewhere in all your naked glory(make sure that cockroach you are forced to eat is not an endangered variety! ), and finally, although there are many more, 4:Do not use any natural resource that can't be immediately replenished.
Now, I am illustrating the absurd by being absurd. But isn't it interesting that we are being asked to drastically change our lifestyles because of someone else's 'perceived' notion that we(humans) are responsible for a concept(global warming) that has no proof attached to it. There are a million things that "seem to make sense" on the surface but we don't turn our entire world upside down based on these faulty assumptions.
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Aug 9, 2002, 8:03 PM
Post #95 of 228
(13209 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
Percentage of time I use 4X4. All winter and quite often for off-roading and accessing "high clearance" roads. I'm no chump. I didn't buy an SUV just to follow a trend. I'm not a drone like most SUV owners (not saying anyone here is).
How often do I have more than one person it it. Almost all the time as I carpool when climbing and take frequent road trips. My wife also, three out of five days at work, uses it to carpool. It is, also, our only vehicle (one vehicle family). Most "couples" can easily get away with being a one car family, most don't. Put it this way. My gas hog SUV uses less gas than families using two cars. Unless of course, both cars are a Toyota Echo or something.
Filled to capacity? Rarely. It holds up to eight, but the very back seat is small and useless for adults. They would be cramped, so I say it is a 5 person vehicle as I leave the very back flipped down to make room for hauling gear, etc. How often do I have five in it? One or two times a week. Four people, almost every day (wife picks up three people for work).
I agree with you. Most people don't need one. I think if you own one and the only off-road action it might see is if you accidently back through a puddle, I think you are an idiot, but I still support my belief in that "to each their own." Still, I don't buy a vehicle to buy a vehicle, follow trends, or for status to flash my money. I buy it for a purpose and frankly, I hate SUVs. Not necessary and no "capacity" for "gear". Thankfully, I have convinced the wife into a mid sized pick-up (4 door for people room). Better on gas, adequate passenger room, more room for lugging stuff around. For my purposes, a 4X4 pick up is more versatile and usefull.
My two cents. Sorry if I offended anyone. Not my intention. I'm just Mr. Opinion and I thank everyone for being so "cool" to me when expressing them.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 9, 2002, 8:23 PM
Post #96 of 228
(13209 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
fisaacs...
This is a FREE society. I like my SUV because it keeps my family safer(more metal to protect them). Part of the price we pay for living in a FREE society is that not everything will be to our liking. Part of the disinformation that is prevalent pertaining to those that hold similar viewpoints to mine is that we are TRYING to wreck the environment! How dumb is that?! We have to live here too as do our children, etc. I am just trying to use some logic here and if that goes against the environmentalists agenda I am labeled 'extreme right wing'. I have not called anybody 'extreme left wing'. We could do more harm than good if we just dive blindly into something based on unproven theories.
I don't want to see glaciers and ice routes melt either(the subject of this thread). I lived in National Parks for the first 13 years of my life and for the next 15 years my dad was a Range Conservationst for the Army(his job was making sure the Army didn't ruin the environment on the base). I majored in Natural Resources Mgmt. in college. I have studied both sides of the issue.
I just don't think humans are as responsible for everything they are being blamed for.
|
|
|
|
|
russmanswife
Aug 9, 2002, 9:02 PM
Post #97 of 228
(13209 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 5, 2001
Posts: 344
|
okay now i have to reply to the suv question. although i have a small one, jeep cherokee. first of all before my son was born we had a smaller car and you don't realize how much stuff you have to pack around for one small person. we had a stroller, a carrier, diaper bad and if we were gone for a weekend a play pen that he slept in plus are bags and don't forget a car seat. you can't get all that stuff in a small car. when we have another child we already know we are going to have to get something bigger, two car seats and double the baby gear. as far as how many people we ever take with us we have taken four people and the baby and it is not comfortable believe me very cramped. on top of baby stuff i have horses you can't tow a horse trailer with a honda civic unless you are going down hill! as far as 4x4 goes i use it all winter from the first snow fall until spring, yes it does help with snow and ice if you know how to drive in snow! believe me i have seen plenty of idiot drivers with 4x4's in the ditch from just going to fast. i totally agree with jody as far as safety goes i have a child to protect and if i have to i will drive a tank to get him back and forth to daycare safely, those compact cars WILL NOT survive most accidents. the bigger the vehicle the better if i get in a car accident i am going to win, and walk away from it with my child in my arms.
|
|
|
|
|
russmanswife
Aug 9, 2002, 9:08 PM
Post #98 of 228
(13209 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 5, 2001
Posts: 344
|
just thought of a little side note the earth is constantly changing humans have been on this planet for such a short period of time, it is kind of depressing but we don't know how much longer we are going to be here. the earth is constantly changing on the surface and underneath, just like nature it adapts and changes - EVOLUTION. we find new species of animals while some die out, it is dry in areas where there use to be lush fields and lakes. you can't stop what has been going on for millions of years some things are just greater than all of us.
|
|
|
|
|
collegekid
Aug 14, 2002, 12:55 AM
Post #99 of 228
(13209 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2002
Posts: 1852
|
nice answer...i like the metaphore. Here's a question: Does the yeast know the end is near?
Also, big suv's are only safer in collisions with smaller cars. In these RARE occasions (most every one drives an suv, so a collision is just as likely to occur between 2 suv's), the people in the smaller vehicle will probably sustain massive injuries, while the suv will be somewhat unharmed. (Not always the case, however.) If this is your logic for buying an suv, you are essentially saying "i don't care about anyone else"..selfish. Since you are selfish, you also don't care about the health of the environment, which ultimately affects your children, grandchildren, and so on. So your selfishness ultimately hurts everyone.
Have you considered the increased risks of rollovers associated with suv's? What about increased costs to repair damages to the massive vehicles? Why not drive a big rig? Those probably come out pretty well in accidents, plus you can move 30 tons in it! All the towing capacity you'll ever need!
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 14, 2002, 2:23 AM
Post #100 of 228
(13209 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
Civilization, by definition, requires that we give up freedoms in exchange for safety. You can't freely steal, kill, or rape. You can't drive a tank on the freeway or fire missles from your backyard.
ball-nut...you can do better than that. Stealing, killing and raping are universally understood to be morally unacceptable.
We purposely give up individual freedoms in order to allow us to live without as much fear of one another
I answer this with a quote from Benjamin Franklin...Those willing to give up freedom for security deserve neither!
BTW, the definition for civilization is:an advanced state of human society, in which a high level of culture, science, industry, and government has been reached.
[ This Message was edited by: jmlangford on 2002-08-13 19:55 ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
