|
|
|
|
climberpunk
Jun 21, 2003, 1:02 AM
Post #176 of 228
(15497 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 22, 2003
Posts: 171
|
ok im going to preface this by saying i did not read most of the 12 pages of this thread. but based on what i did see, i have to assume a few things.
most of our disagreements are not over the consequences of the facts, but wether or not we care about those consequences. Its some basic differences in moral values that we base our opinions on. I place the needs of a greater whole, all life, in front of what i see as petty personal pleasures. Im not being a martyr here, thats just how i proritize things.
as far as what the rest of the world has done for us and what america has done for the rest of the world- BORDERS ARE JUST IMAGINARY LINES. they mean nothing. borders seperating peoples are-in my mind- the root of all conflict. we devide people into neat little abstract boxes so that we can decide how to treat them without thinking about them as humans. you talk about the rest of the world "bombing our towers" the towers arent just american, they were filled with people of the whole world. the hijackers were INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE, not Iraqi's. We-myself included- need to stop stereotyping people, and recognize that EVERYONE IS A CITIZEN OF THE WORLD. you are only american because you were born here-essentially luck of the draw.
COLLEGEKID: i am an vegitarian, almost vegan, because of the effect of the meat industry has on the environment and global economy-its just wasteful [email me and ill be glad to show you details as to how]. These are the same reasons i will never own a car. however, i more than respect your position as a hunter. HUNTING IS MUCH MORE NATURAL THAT EATING TOFU. my reasons for vegitarianism arent to do with the actual eating of the animal, but for the way the are grown. and as far as "WHAT HAS THE ENVIRONMENT DONE FOR ME IN THE LAST FIVE MINUTES" PLEASE TELL ME YOU WERE KIDDING!!! look around you. everything--absolutely everything--is from the environment. your food, your air, your hummer, your house, the gas for your hummer, your gun, ALL OF IT IS FROM THE ENVIRONMENT if we dont use sustainable techniques, future generations will have nothing.
Oil will replenish itself, of course, but not at ANYWHERE NEAR the rate we consume it at. just as we dont allow forests to grow back, we just destroy entire ecosystems in order to satisfy our every desire. I mean look at the Amazon, hundreds of acres of rainforest are bulldozed to the ground, and often burned, every day. this will take thousands of years, if ever, to regenerate.
Of course we[humans] have a tiny respective effect on the environment. but that is the straw that will break the camels back. That tiny tenth [if that much, i didnt do the math] of a percent that we contribute to emissions is all it takes to upset the balance.
ok im going to stop ranting now, because i dont think anything i say over the internet will convince anyone of anything-and im not making any sense.. if you would like to have a 1-1 discussion about anything- especially politics/ethics, please PM/IM me-tmsean
peace, and no hard feelings [forgive my spelling]
|
|
|
|
|
micahmcguire
Jun 22, 2003, 7:10 AM
Post #177 of 228
(15497 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 18, 2002
Posts: 889
|
a hitman, awesome! does that have a pension program that comes with it?
|
|
|
|
|
wuontherocks
Nov 8, 2005, 2:47 AM
Post #178 of 228
(15497 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 10, 2005
Posts: 19
|
Holy Sh*t, why didn't I see this thread before! :shock:
I know there's been alot said, but alot of it is outdated or just plain wrong. It's a "free" country, but just read this and make sure you know what governments are not talking about to keep the economy going.
HUMAN ACTIVITY CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING (at least in part)
Evidence is now overwhelming that humans cause global warming; it's just a question of how much. If you need GW's word, earlier this year, he has acknowledged that human activity causes global warming. For mild censored public info: http://www.ucsusa.org/ So what if the world warms up a few degrees?
CONSEQUENCES
Current estimates range from 2.5-10.4F global increases in temperature in the next 100 yrs. That means 2.5 is not likely & neither is 10.4 but the most likely increase will be close to 6-7F. In the last 10 000 yrs, the global temperature increased 1.8F at the most; we're talking a 400x increase in the rate of global warming! (do the math) It's still just 6-7 degrees F right? During the last glaciation period, it was 5-9F colder & NY was covered under 3000' of ice. There's evidence that increases in temperature causes hurricanes to increase in intensity (not frequency). How did you like Hurricanes this year? Add sea level increases and coastal cities will be even closer to the Hurricanes (for those not already flooded).
PERSPECTIVES
Estimates are based on past energy consumption in the world. Over 300 millions of North Americans (including Canadians) have been & are still increasing energy consumption. China (over 1 billion people) has been increasing its "productivity" and energy consumption 8% every year & there's no sign of stopping. India & other developing countries are not far behind (add at least another billion). Basically, the consumption of more than 2 billion people will increase 10x to reach our current level in about 30 years.
You know what, in 30yrs is also about the time that there will be no oil worth taking left. Half of the estimated oil deposits in the world have been used. Oil « production » (we only harvest it) has recently past its peak & is decreasing in quality and quantity.
Global warming is happening and it’s got major consequences on the world. Anyhow, those who want to keep up the SUVs, air-conditioning, airplanes, etc. better start putting oil aside, because there’s about 30yrs left of oil after which... (economic) Crash & burn baby :twisted:
Mick
People are just like the frog that you put in cold water & bring slowly to a boil… (it doesn’t jump out).
|
|
|
|
|
scottquig
Nov 8, 2005, 3:30 AM
Post #179 of 228
(15497 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 10, 2005
Posts: 298
|
cause i't's more than 2 years old.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Nov 8, 2005, 4:10 PM
Post #180 of 228
(15497 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
Holy thread revival, Batman.
|
|
|
|
|
montaniero
Nov 8, 2005, 7:20 PM
Post #181 of 228
(15497 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2004
Posts: 238
|
Shouldn't all this SUV-bashing be in the Community forum? I know global warming melts ice but I thought this forum was to talk about couloirs, ice tools and suffering.
|
|
|
|
|
cchas
Nov 8, 2005, 10:30 PM
Post #182 of 228
(15497 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 9, 2005
Posts: 344
|
This is where scientists have done a poor job at discribing to the lay individual (and especially the politicians) on how to understand what they are saying. With a fairly high degree of confidence they believe that the current models of globel warming is correct. They will not say its absolutely certain that it will happen but a better way to concider this is to look at how I look at clinical trial data (for medical therapies) and convert it into real world situations....
If I see a therapy that has a p value of 0.05 as compared to a control, I would say that there is a statistical trend but not statistically significant enough to warrant approval ( which would require a p value of 0.005)... now if I was told that if I was on a climb and there was a 90% chance that I'd get killed, I would absolutely change how I was making my decisions. Same probability but different perceptions, one as a scientist and one as a human.
Similar situations can be applied to globel warming....
|
|
|
|
|
changling
Nov 9, 2005, 3:24 AM
Post #183 of 228
(15497 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2002
Posts: 301
|
Adeptus, you are right about what you wrote, except for this:
In reply to: Humans may change a bit on the microscopic scale, but this is nothing compared to the natural cycles. And all the hype about increased carbon dioxide fugacity is ridicules, because values are lower now than in any other period in earth’s history.
Sure, carbon dioxide levels have been higher in the past, but was a long ago past, whose CO2 levels decreased since the coming of photosynthetic life. Human impact is clearly visible on this gragh. There is a lot of evidence out there supporting the high impact anthropomorphic activity has on the increased levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
|
|
|
|
|
lewisiarediviva
Nov 10, 2005, 3:19 AM
Post #184 of 228
(15497 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2004
Posts: 527
|
In reply to: ... because organic energy as a resource will soon be used up and we will have to come up with a new energy source. |
|
|
|
|
wuontherocks
Nov 10, 2005, 5:36 AM
Post #185 of 228
(15497 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 10, 2005
Posts: 19
|
Honestly, I'm not impressed. It's a personal webpage with loads of equations including a bunch of "assuming that...", "to simplify...", "approximately...", etc. about the Earth's orbit and concludes that the temperature increases we see are not human induced. Surely there is a margin of error in his model estimation; I wonder why he doesn't show that.
It sounds possible, but less convincing than human induced effects imho
In reply to: The biggest danger to humanity is ourselves.
I think we agree on that! :D
|
|
|
|
|
wuontherocks
Nov 10, 2005, 6:26 AM
Post #186 of 228
(15497 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 10, 2005
Posts: 19
|
In reply to: Today's values are about 375 ppmv. But life in the Mesozoic era had no problems with values above 2000 ppmv!
Yep, and most of the life was big CO2 loving trees & almost exclusively cold blooded animals. (Humans & mammoths were not around with the dinosaurs)
In reply to: And there is a limit for the amount of carbon dioxide that humans can produces, because organic energy as a resource will soon be used up and we will have to come up with a new energy source. Photosynthesis and incorporation in carbonate sediments will fairly quickly get rid of excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere too.
Photosythesis will take a while considering trees are being cut down at an increasing rate and will be prime organic energy once oil is gone. I guess we'll have to grow and bury weeds to get the CO2 out of the system. We'll fuel the vehicules & machines with ethanol which produces just as much CO2 as oil (minus the other garbage)
In reply to: So I'm just pointing out that humans are nothing special. We are only a small part of the earth's history and we make no difference. Life will continue with or without us.
Is that analogous to it doesn't matter if the whole planet blew up tomorrow because it is completely insignificant in the galaxy, let alone the universe?
I agree completely that nature will take it's course. I guess the way I see it is that it depends at what scale you care.
If we increase global temperatures by a few degrees we make no difference at the geological scale.
On the other hand, the same change at the scale of 100 years makes a significant difference for the next generations starting from children born today.
Does anyone else get :shock: & :roll: at how so many people get overprotective of their right to luxury & and not even consider what's coming up? Oh, that looks like a case of I care at the scale of my lifetime.
Ok time to go, it's getting philosophical! :lol:
Mick
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Nov 10, 2005, 6:46 AM
Post #187 of 228
(15497 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
In reply to: A while back there was a post by someone lamenting the fact that us evil humans were melting all the good ice routes by our lifestyle. He complained about the glaciers melting, etc. and that we were causing it. I couldn't find that thread, so I am starting a new one. . [ This Message was edited by: jmlangford on
2002-07-30 20:28 ]
Blah Blah Blah.
Facts: Three of the last 4 years have seen the highest world wide average temps. And seemingly this is a trend.
This season had the most hurricanes ever, but was inline with an increase in hurricanes over the last 5 years.
Most Cat 5 storms ever
Ice caps are clearly melting. Sure, the kind folks in Snowshoe, WV might like ocean front property but those in say Phili, NY or Boston probably would like to stay above water.
a bunch of other stuff. I'll post a second time with the facts from NOAA on the continual warming trend.
Bottom line is we might actually have killer ice seasons every year because global warming doesn't necessarily mean that winter is going to be in the 70's in the northeast. It just means the overall world average temp for the year is increasing. What happens in various geographic regions is meaningless.
in terms of ice climbing. it's true. Mt Kenya is lacking the traditional mixed routes increasingly. Kilimanjaro is losing it's small snow cap. And the glaciers in both the US and Europe are melting at an increasingly alarming rate.
Nice try.
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Nov 10, 2005, 6:50 AM
Post #188 of 228
(15497 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
In reply to: In reply to: Today's values are about 375 ppmv. But life in the Mesozoic era had no problems with values above 2000 ppmv! If we increase global temperatures by a few degrees we make no difference at the geological scale. On the other hand, the same change at the scale of 100 years makes a significant difference for the next generations starting from children born today. Mick
Interestingly how many degrees would it take to put us into an ice age on a global scale? Around 4-6 degrees. So saying a few degrees here or there as a global temp difference means nothing is absurd.
I don't think you understand in a world of big #'s 3-6 degrees is a huge # if it's on a global scale.
|
|
|
|
|
changling
Nov 10, 2005, 7:02 AM
Post #189 of 228
(15497 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2002
Posts: 301
|
In reply to: It sounds possible, but less convincing than human induced effects imho
The Milankovitch Cycle has a very strong effect on global climate change. This NASA website explains it well.
In reply to: Photosythesis will take a while considering trees are being cut down at an increasing rate and will be prime organic energy once oil is gone. I guess we'll have to grow and bury weeds to get the CO2 out of the system.
The most significant CO2 sink is the ocean. In my environmental geology class, we discuss the different possible climatic changes that might occur with the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. One of them is that with the melting of the ice caps, the oceans' surface area will increase, allowing more CO2 to precipitate into the oceans, thus less CO2 in the atmosphere and the Earth cools. Also, warming temperatures would mean an increase in evaporation, which results in more clouds, which follows by more of the sun's radiation being reflected back into space, also resulting in cooler temperatures. But then again, clouds trap outgoing infrared radiation, which in turn warms us. Also, warmer temperatures melt permafrost, which then releases methane (another greenhouse gas) which was trapped in the permafrost out into the atmosphere, creating more warming, and so on...
We can't fully predict our future, but despite that, I still believe in trying to have as little an impact on our planet as we can.
|
|
|
|
|
wuontherocks
Nov 11, 2005, 6:08 PM
Post #190 of 228
(15497 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 10, 2005
Posts: 19
|
In reply to: Interestingly how many degrees would it take to put us into an ice age on a global scale? Around 4-6 degrees. So saying a few degrees here or there as a global temp difference means nothing is absurd.
I know that; it's in my first post on this tread. I was simply answering another post saying that these changes occur naturally (cycles of glaciations) So my point was that the changes we are observing are much faster than that (see prev post)
"Chill" a bit :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
tallnik
Nov 12, 2005, 6:36 PM
Post #191 of 228
(15497 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 18, 2004
Posts: 595
|
I love these kind of posts...
I love claims of people wanting to see proof of global warming, and I love people who make claims of evidence coming from counter-science.
I have to admit not having read through all 13 pages of responses...
so if someone has already said what I'm going to say, my apoplogies.
However, take a look at the sources that people present for their evidence. Many of the famed "Global warming is not human caused" scientists have shaky or not incredibly solid evidence to back up their work. That's my opinion after having studied available evidence (BA in enviro, Poi sci, and International Development from McGill)
Just think and act critically before making your conclusions. Especially if you want to agree immediately...
Cheers,
Nik
|
|
|
|
|
unclebob
Nov 15, 2005, 1:38 AM
Post #192 of 228
(15497 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 3, 2005
Posts: 26
|
In reply to: Duncan, I appreciate what you are trying to say, but there is absolutely NO proof that global warming is actually happening and if it is, there is no proof that WE are causing it. I just have a problem with huge alterations to our awesome lifestyle based on what unproven computer models tell us might happen in the next 1000 years. BTW, "Great deeds make a country great". Last time I checked, if it wasn't for the terrible, arrogant, non-caring, industrialized United States of America, this world would have had its butt kicked twice in world wars and we would probably be living under Adolf Hitler or something! I am just sick and tired of people trying to subjugate our country's sovereignty by telling us how to run our country. Also, the United States of America, in all of its filthy rich glory, just happens to supply 1/3 of the world's food. The U.S. also shells out billions upon billions in foreign aid to those countries less fortunate. We also happen to have the best medical research and treatment facilities in the world! We are a pretty good country, and I am fed up with the rest of the jealous world trying to bring us down with unproven "scientific" studies. Show me the proof!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1490248,00.html
|
|
|
|
|
unclebob
Nov 15, 2005, 1:48 AM
Post #193 of 228
(15497 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 3, 2005
Posts: 26
|
In reply to: The graph you linked is absolutely true, but take a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/...c_Carbon_Dioxide.png Today's values are about 375 ppmv. But life in the Mesozoic era had no problems with values above 2000 ppmv! What I'm saying is that humans may change a bit, but if we look a the big picture it is not significant. A very violent volcano eruption can emit much more carbon dioxide than the industry in the last century.
from: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/...Story/International/
In reply to: Worldwide, sulphur dioxide emissions from volcanoes total about 15 million tonnes a year, compared with the 200 million tonnes produced by power plants and other human activities. |
|
|
|
|
goat_boy
Nov 19, 2005, 5:45 AM
Post #194 of 228
(15497 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2005
Posts: 5
|
In reply to: I admit this is an inflammatory subject, but let us remain civil and let us remain friends, even if we have to agree to disagree.
Actually, jmlangford, I'm pleased to use my first post on this board to say that I am not interested in "remaining friends" or "agreeing" in any manner with you or anyone who :
1) Demands scientific proof of something as easy to observe as the sun rising in the morning;
2) Wants us all to amicably go along and agree with an (admittedly) inflammatory political position which YOU brought up to begin with.
All of the glaciers in the North Cascades are slated to be gone in 40 years. Global warming is a naturally occuring event, as you stated -- but it's the RATE at which its happening, and our ridiculous society's consumer-based lifestyle (perpetuated by feel-good passive-aggressive lobbyists like yourself) which has accelerated that process.
Can you "agree to disagree" with that? :roll:
|
|
|
|
|
jimdavis
Nov 21, 2005, 2:27 AM
Post #195 of 228
(15497 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 1, 2003
Posts: 1935
|
In reply to: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1490248,00.html
from that link: "In a separate study a team led by Ruth Curry, of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Connecticut, has established that 20,000 sq km of freshwater ice melted in the Arctic between 1965 and 1995. Further melting on this scale could be sufficient to turn off the ocean currents that drive the Gulf Stream, which keeps Britain up to 6C warmer than it would otherwise be."
Too bad that's not a measure of volume. :roll: Just plain stupid...
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
mbez
Nov 26, 2005, 4:14 PM
Post #196 of 228
(15497 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2004
Posts: 66
|
A recent article from the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/...ce/earth/25core.html
In reply to: Rise in Gases Unmatched by a History in Ancient Ice Shafts of ancient ice pulled from Antarctica's frozen depths show that for at least 650,000 years three important heat-trapping greenhouse gases never reached recent atmospheric levels caused by human activities, scientists are reporting today. * * * "They've now pushed back two-thirds of a million years and found that nature did not get as far as humans have," said Richard B. Alley, a geosciences professor at Pennsylvania State University who is an expert on ice cores. "We're changing the world really hugely - way past where it's been for a long time." James White, a geology professor at the University of Colorado, Boulder, not involved with the study, said that although the ice-age evidence showed that levels of carbon dioxide and the other greenhouse gases rose and fell in response to warming and cooling, the gases could clearly take the lead as well. "CO2 and climate are like two people handcuffed to each other," he said. "Where one goes, the other must follow. Leadership may change, or they may march in step, but they are never far from each other. Our current CO2 levels appear to be far out of balance with climate when viewed through these results, reinforcing the idea that we have significant modern warming to go." |
|
|
|
|
kixx
Nov 28, 2005, 10:25 PM
Post #197 of 228
(15497 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 23, 2005
Posts: 178
|
Some things to think about... And this is why global warming has everything to do with alpinism.
The last 10 years have seen 10 times the rate of glacier reduction in Alaska for the last few hundred years. Blame it on whatever you want, you can't miss it.
Anybody who climbs in Alaska (mostly Alaska Range) can tell you that there has been a very dramatic shift in climbing conditions there. Glaciers are melting out and the local pilots are curtailing late season flights. Last year we were told we should be "ready" to walk out. Routes are melting out much more quickly... When scheming big routes the time of year is a very big consideration. Even on Rainier I have been exposed on a melted out route with no pro to speak of. (we threaded the rope through wet volcanic rock in mid April) There should have been ice screws and pickets, but we were scrambling on talus and dodging rockfall instead of spindrift.
My climatologist climber buddy tells me that the Earth will cool herself with increased rain and other climatic changes that may eventually plunge us into an ice age until we reach equilibrium again. Don't get excited though, apparently we'll never climb in it... just something to think about.
Stay cool :?
|
|
|
|
|
JackAttack
Nov 21, 2007, 5:28 PM
Post #198 of 228
(6366 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 24, 2007
Posts: 55
|
I have done lots of research on the topic of global warming, fossil fuels, and alternative energy sources. i'll put out some graphs and statistics.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/Slides/Presentation/Slide1.png
this shows our temperature now, temperatures for the past three thousand years, and the average temperature for the past three thousand years.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/Slides/Presentation/Slide3.png
this shows temperature since 1880 and how it clearly matches solar irradiance, suggesting that global warming is actually caused by the sun. it also shows the increase in world hydrocarbon use (car emissions, etc.) and how it does not match the temperatures increase.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/Slides/Presentation/Slide2.png
shows glacier shortening as compared to increase in hydrocarbons. at first it appears that they have similar slope near the end of the graph, but if you look closer you can tell that glacier shortening began before the large increase in hydrocarbons.
some people also sugest other problems from increased carbon dioxide, but there really are none. if you think about it plants breath carbon dioxide so more of it only makes them grow better as shown by this graph.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/Slides/Presentation/Slide21.png
i could put in more graphs and argue more but i really dont feel like it
|
|
|
|
|
bent_gate
Nov 21, 2007, 5:44 PM
Post #199 of 228
(6972 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2004
Posts: 2620
|
JackAttack wrote: I have done lots of research on the topic of global warming, fossil fuels, and alternative energy sources. i'll put out some graphs and statistics.  this shows our temperature now, temperatures for the past three thousand years, and the average temperature for the past three thousand years.  this shows temperature since 1880 and how it clearly matches solar irradiance, suggesting that global warming is actually caused by the sun. it also shows the increase in world hydrocarbon use (car emissions, etc.) and how it does not match the temperatures increase.  shows glacier shortening as compared to increase in hydrocarbons. at first it appears that they have similar slope near the end of the graph, but if you look closer you can tell that glacier shortening began before the large increase in hydrocarbons. some people also sugest other problems from increased carbon dioxide, but there really are none. if you think about it plants breath carbon dioxide so more of it only makes them grow better as shown by this graph.  i could put in more graphs and argue more but i really dont feel like it
It's Alive! (almost two years to the date, not bad)
|
|
|
|
|
mjdoutdoors
Nov 21, 2007, 6:43 PM
Post #200 of 228
(6938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 6, 2007
Posts: 18
|
I think that regardless of whether you think that global warming is real or not the real issue with human acitvity and our use of fossil fuels should focus on clean air and clean water.Look at the pollution levels of our rivers and oceans, ie. mercury levels, caused by the burning of coal. Many people can deny the facts on global warming(understandable) but very few can deny the use of fossil fuels is a dirty polluting way of obtaining energy. There are better ways of getting energy, fossil fuels just happens to be conveinent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
