USA & Global Heating - Page 8
Largest Manufacturing Technology
Community On The Web
Close
Login to Your Account

Page 8 of 25 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 482
  1. #141
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Maryland- USA
    Posts
    2,657
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1328
    Likes (Received)
    1627

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spinit View Post
    Re: Ice covered Earth. Would it be reasonable that ocean fish like whales which are air breathing would not have a thick ice cover which would prevent them from breathing? Maybe not totally covered if that is the reality.
    From just the most cursory look see into the topic-

    The Snowball Earth hypothesis describes a sceneriao that might have happened prior to 650 million years ago.
    Just guessing but no whales there for certain- even fish?
    Pretty much too early to be a example of the regulatory regime of climate as it relates to us and all of our forbears..


    Life on the planet for ~4 BILLION years WOW....

    I imagine God coming back from a coffee break..
    "What the hell have you prokaryotes been doing? I wanted multi cellularity by now.."

    Bit later he comes back from lunch..
    "You clams are swimming?? and why all those crazy arms? I got fish for this- get back in your shells and back on the bottom where I put you"

    He hates to do it but has to step out for a piss...
    "HUMANS? Who made these damn things and if you think I am going to clean up after your mess...."

  2. Likes Gordon B. Clarke, jfleisher liked this post
  3. #142
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    2,788
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1252
    Likes (Received)
    1795

    Default

    Then there's this interesting take on the subject........


  4. #143
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,123
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1490
    Likes (Received)
    185

    Arrow

    Hey Pete,
    Thanks for the book recommendation I loaded it onto my Kindle and started reading it already. The topics to be covered are going to be very good reading.
    Quote Originally Posted by PeteM View Post
    I'm skeptical, too. I don't trust climate predictions any more than ESPN pundits predictions of who will win the next Super Bowl. Right now, I suppose, maybe it's Seattle.

    But if you just admit the chance that more forest fires in some areas, trashed crops in others, and more coast-destroying storms in others will win the "Climate Bowl" then it's at least worth paying attention. Our military surely is -- and they're not doing it as tree huggers.

    For me, the reasons to slow down the rate of burning fossil fuels and increase the investment in a portfolio of alternatives are justified (and supported by the facts) entirely by the other factors noted above: true costs, pollution, health effects, past and future defense costs, future balances of power, etc.

    As for the forest fire thing -- I was wondering who'd bring that up. Turns out that even burning a million acres here and there for a few weeks or months until the next rain may not much compare to burning fossil fuels in billion cars, a hundred million trucks, a billion homes, a hundred million businesses, tens of thousands of power plants, day in and day out, across the entire globe. And, as you say, plants sprung up in the new environment after a forest fire centuries ago. These days we may pave 'em over or put in turf.

    Is there still capacity to sequester all this carbon? Likely, you say. Probably not say the folks who've made it their life study.

    Speaking of books -- on that stuck with me is Jared Diamond's "Collapse." His chapter on the Easter Islands now looks to be possibly part fiction. But still a compelling story of a once-successful civilization that died in an orgy of resource consumption. Or maybe read "Last Ape Standing."

    A little humility about how well we're doing in running the show for the longer term might not hurt.

  5. #144
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    West Coast, USA
    Posts
    6,838
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    281
    Likes (Received)
    3489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smalltime View Post
    Then there's this interesting take on the subject........

    By Patrick Moore's logic (of "Prager University") I could make a video that water covering the entire planet is good. Bummer about Noah's flood ending. Forget the 3' sea rise -- we want to drown in the stuff. After all:

    - Water is essential to life
    - Farmers purposely add water to crops to make them grow
    - When there's water, the plants are green
    - We actually search for water on other planets as a sign they can support life
    - Water shouldn't be confused with the explosive hydrogen (the H2 in H2O)-- like CO and CO2 it has some extra oxygen atoms.
    - And so on.

    Here's the counterpoint (video part way down the page): http://www.skepticalscience.com/empi...use-effect.htm

    The important point, IMO, is that one doesn't have to agree with either video or believe that lighting ten billion fires* across the planet has the slightest effect on the atmosphere, temperature, climate, storms, drought, sea levels, arctic ice, polar bears etc. to want to use a few more alternatives. That switch is entirely justified on the half dozen other grounds (pollution, health, level playing fields, defense, etc.) noted above.

    *Just this morning I lit a half dozen or so fires. Lit one to take a warm shower. The huge one was to power my car. A little one, my share way back in a power plant, made my coffee and breakfast. Another one is powering my browser (and the 'nets massive data centers). Others are powering lights. Pretty soon I'll "light" several fairly big ones in my shop. I've been procrastinating on starting the ones labeled Stihl (downed tree) and Husqvarna (weeds that need trimming to keep fire clearance).

    Having the energy available to power these things is terrific. But, but the sources of that energy don't have to come 80+% from digging up our trove of fossil fuels and burning them all as soon as possible. Especially since some of the alternatives, when true costs are considered, are cheaper and more sustainably abundant.

  6. #145
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    2,788
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1252
    Likes (Received)
    1795

    Default

    So,
    He was OK when he started Greenpeace, but since he left them.........Not so much?

  7. #146
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Denver, CO USA
    Posts
    9,386
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    30
    Likes (Received)
    3595

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smalltime View Post
    So,
    He was OK when he started Greenpeace, but since he left them.........Not so much?
    His position is rather Gaia.
    Mother Earth will take care of itself, including wiping out us pesky humans.
    Which is largely true.

  8. #147
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    West Coast, USA
    Posts
    6,838
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    281
    Likes (Received)
    3489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smalltime View Post
    So,
    He was OK when he started Greenpeace, but since he left them.........Not so much?
    I've never much followed Greenpeace.

    A quick check on the guy (fired up my browser) would show that it's a stretch of the truth to say he founded Greenpeace. Overall, he sounds like an OK guy to me; much like the dozens in the other video clip that disagree with him.

    But if you understand my point, even if the tiny fraction of climate scientists thinking that humans aren't contributing to climate instability are correct -- we'd still want to encourage alternatives for all the other reasons noted above.

  9. #148
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Asheville NC USA
    Posts
    8,857
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3154
    Likes (Received)
    2743

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smalltime View Post
    So,
    He was OK when he started Greenpeace, but since he left them.........Not so much?
    Moore was not a founder of Greenpeace. He perpetuates that lie as a part of his resume in an attempt to give himself more validity. The link below shows the evidence put forth by Greenpeace as proof Moore was not one of the founders.

    Who Founded Greenpeace? Not Patrick Moore. ? Greg Laden's Blog

    For the last 30 yrs Moore has been a stooge mouthpiece available to push any sort of "science" so long as someone's willing to pay him for what he says.

  10. #149
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Kolding Denmark
    Posts
    15,567
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3092
    Likes (Received)
    4612

    Default

    Greenpeace, like so many other similar "causes" probably started off with the best intentions until "the chosen few" found out that they it paid well. After that it was all about money and the input from "useful idiots" aka members.

  11. Likes michiganbuck liked this post
  12. #150
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Michigan
    Posts
    6,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1980
    Likes (Received)
    2102

    Default

    I think the world gets so hot naturally then we will have another Ice Age.
    How am I going auger through 60 feet of ice to go fishing, that is the question.

  13. Likes Trboatworks liked this post
  14. #151
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Eastern Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    3,384
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2479
    Likes (Received)
    2393

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteM View Post
    Just following that logic, adding a carbon tax to reflect at least some of the true costs of acquiring and burning fossil fuels would be a financial incentive leading towards steady improvements.
    Incentives are carrots, that type of tax is a stick.

  15. #152
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    uk
    Posts
    11,097
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2675
    Likes (Received)
    4612

    Default

    Im with carbide bob, so long as the changes happen over the 5-10 year per foot + range, its a non issue, Most docks - sea ports need dredging at at least that frequency, most docks and there cranage rarely make it over 20 years of age these days. Hell felisxtowe docks here in suffolk has had significant changes probably at least every 3-4 years just to keep up with ever increasing boat size.

    Way too many humans seam hell bent against change. The worlds not a stable place, you build a house in a flood plane, chances are your going to get wet feat once in a while. Its taught in school here to 8 year olds, its not rocket science, its the basic skills mankind need to survive. Sure you want to live on the flood plane, back onto the nice little stream go for it, just don't expect me to fund your life choices especially the bad ones. Same as having a fully landscaped garden in a arid area prone to bush fires, yeah if you have trees that go right upto your property + a roof made out of something flammable its probably going to catch fire when the blazes come through. Alternative garden choices and building materials are available! They just might not match the latest fashion choice! As is living some were not so inhospitable!!

    Floods, Ice ages, Droughts, wild fires , meteor Strikes etc have all happened and will all continue to happen, Whats made us top of the food chain is not a stupid one off idea - approach but the flexibility to adjust to a changing world around us. The idea of a fixed steady state is one of the few things we know for certain as a pipe dream, the worlds just not a stable place, we had to adapt to get this far, its kinda short sighted to expect not to have to adapt again.

    As to relocating cities, Pretty much everything in the Americas was not there 300 years ago. Kinda hard to imagine that if the bankers in NYC were getting wet feet they would not simply find a solution weather moving or just better flood defences!!

  16. #153
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Maryland- USA
    Posts
    2,657
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1328
    Likes (Received)
    1627

    Default

    I think calling a foot every five to ten years a "non-issue" is understating it a bit..



    The Gulf Stream is sort of handy for you Brits- another non-issue?
    Exceptional twentieth-century slowdown in Atlantic Ocean overturning circulation : Nature Climate Change

  17. #154
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    8,438
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    741
    Likes (Received)
    1006

    Default

    By definition, the world has been warming for the last 12,000 years.
    If that were not true, we would still be in the last ice age.

    Ice ages have occurred repeatedly for at least the last 2.6 Million years*.

    So the warmer periods between ice ages were caused by ... GLOBAL WARMING.

    It's a natural cycle on the planet.

    - Leigh

    *Per NOAA's National Climatic Data Center: Climate Timeline Tool: Summary of 100,000 Years

  18. #155
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Denver, CO USA
    Posts
    9,386
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    30
    Likes (Received)
    3595

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scottl View Post
    Incentives are carrots, that type of tax is a stick.
    IDK, a cattle prod can incentivise you.
    Same for starvation.

  19. #156
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    West Coast, USA
    Posts
    6,838
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    281
    Likes (Received)
    3489

    Default

    There probably isn't a carrot near big enough to account for $2 trillion and thousands of lives spent defending oil, thousands of pollution related deaths, billions lost in oil spills . . .

    http://f.fastcompany.net/multisite_f...-panoramic.jpg

  20. #157
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Denver, CO USA
    Posts
    9,386
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    30
    Likes (Received)
    3595

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The real Leigh View Post
    It's a natural cycle on the planet.

    - Leigh

    *Per NOAA's National Climatic Data Center: Climate Timeline Tool: Summary of 100,000 Years
    What's NOT natural is the concentration of CO2 which we haven't seen in several million years.

  21. #158
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Denver, CO USA
    Posts
    9,386
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    30
    Likes (Received)
    3595

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteM View Post
    There probably isn't a carrot near big enough to account for $2 trillion and thousands of lives spent defending oil, thousands of pollution related deaths, billions lost in oil spills . . .

    http://f.fastcompany.net/multisite_f...-panoramic.jpg
    And that's only the last decade.

  22. #159
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    8,438
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    741
    Likes (Received)
    1006

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Miguels244 View Post
    What's NOT natural is the concentration of CO2 which we haven't seen in several million years.
    That might change the rate of warming slightly, but it doesn't change the fact of warming at all.

    What's NOT natural is the concentration of PR firms blasting away in the media trying to scare the public.

    The more they scare the uninformed masses, the more money the masses happily throw at their "saviors".

    This whole nonsense is 110% about enriching a few companies.

    - Leigh

  23. #160
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Vt USA
    Posts
    5,482
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    442
    Likes (Received)
    1554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trboatworks View Post
    I think calling a foot every five to ten years a "non-issue" is understating it a bit..



    The Gulf Stream is sort of handy for you Brits- another non-issue?
    Exceptional twentieth-century slowdown in Atlantic Ocean overturning circulation : Nature Climate Change
    I'm with you on this Trboatworks. WHEN the big heat transport system collapses AGAIN.

    Europe is going to be cold as Hades. Or so I think.

    What is the rest of the world going to do with all the heat that didn't make it to Norway? Who knows, but I don't want to be living in the Bahamas when that happens. ;-)

    Don't worry, I'm not holding my breath.........


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •