Jump to content

So Much for Global Warming


trebor
 Share

Recommended Posts

We have just broken a record for snowfall amount in 24 hours and we have had sub-zero (F) temps. for the past three weeks. Have been wearing our furs almost everyday. If there's Global Warming, it's NOT happening here in the Rockies NOR in Alaska where the average temp. for the last 3 years has dropped 3 degrees.

 

Great conditions for wearing fur. " title="Applause" />

 

FurBob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Global warming is a controversial topic. Just last week, I saw a BBC documentary on Yellowstone National Park where the last segment profiled a man who loves winter. He makes a living by shoveling snow off the roofs of buildings in the park. He said that over the last few decades, it has definitely gotten warmer in the park during the winters as well as less snow falling. Climate is a tricky thing to understand. We've had tons of snow in California this winter, but in Colorado, according to a TV news story I saw several weeks ago, there has been a lot less snow. From what we know of carbon dioxide acting as a gas that traps sunlight/warmth from escaping to outer space coupled with the fact that we emit enormous quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere every year, it makes total sense that the Earth's climate as a whole is warming. However, this doesn't mean that all of a sudden, winters in northern Canada become like winters in Florida.

 

*** DELETED INAPPROPRIATE COMMENTS ***

Worker 11811

 

Tricia

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually Trebor, it IS happening there.

 

Global warming/climate change is not a black and white issue when it comes to different areas/states/countries as the climate changes will vary from place to place/state to state/country to country/continent to continent.

 

Climate is not a local factor, but a global one.... local is not called weather rather than climate for linguistic purposes alone. Climate is a combination of many things, including air, land and sea temperatures, wind patterns, frontal patterns, air and water currents of the planet which determines how your local weather evolves. Changes to one or two of these variables have a causal effect and not necessarily "in your neck of the woods", to quote Willard Scott.

 

Weather that you experience in "your neck of the woods" is based on the World's climatic activity and some of that activity cannot be seen nor experienced directly by you as it occurs away from your local area.

 

The Old chaos theory that a hummingbird flapping its wings furiously in the Amazon leads to monsoons over Bangladesh might be stretching it example-wise, but in reality when it comes to climate as opposed to weather..... it is a whole lot closer to the truth than one might realise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Global warming is a fact and you can debate that fact all you want; but it will not change that fact. There was a core study done in the Antarctic several years back. They went down close to two miles which gave them a glimpse into the past 70,000 years. What they discovered was just found how much the weather patterns had changed in that time frame. For example 40,000 years ago the earth atmosphere warmed up by 4deg/about7.2C in less than 50 years and of course we are all aware of the ice age. We are but a microcosm in time on this plant. I have photos of friends and myself ice skating on the Chesapeake bay in the 1960’s (that will never happen again). Last night’s news showed people in China being told to stay inside because the pollution in the air is so toxic it can kill humans. If you don’t think humans are not in the process of ruining the earth’s environment through over population, chemical pollution of not only our atmosphere; but the oceans and land as well. Congregations you live a world of bliss.

 

True fact: Every child that is born today in every part of the world before it takes its first breath already has over 1,200 chemical toxins in its system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I think we are seeing changes in our climate.

Yes, I think we need to consider the possible reasons and take action, accordingly.

Yes, I believe we need to take it as a warning that we need to be careful about polluting the environment.

Yes, we need to conserve. We need to lessen our dependance on fossil fuels. We need to find new ways to produce energy that don't pollute as much.

 

All of this is stipulated. Agreed, beforehand. No need to argue over facts which are clearly in front of us.

 

However, I believe that anybody who says they know the whole truth is deceiving themselves. The earth is a very, very big and complex thing. No person can claim that they understand even 1% of it. Anybody who claims that they know everything is engaging in an act of self-conceit.

 

Most of these conceited people are political types who are trying to promote their politically motivated agenda over the agendas of others.

I don't care what your personal political views are. I don't care if you are conservative or liberal. I don't care if you are Democrat or Republican. I don't care if you are Labour or Conservative or Tory or Whig. I don't give a rat's ass if you are Martian!

 

Using environmental issues to promote your personal political agenda is, always has been and always will be a very, very bad thing!

 

In my personal view, I see the environment like a businessman looks at his balance sheets. The environment is a commodity to be used but to be used wisely. Just as you put money in the bank and hope that, in a few years, you'll earn interest and have more money to spend, I believe that conserving resources can allow us to have more good things to use in the future.

 

I don't believe we should cut down trees and clear cut forests just to build shopping malls but I also know that people need lumber to build houses. Maybe we can cut down SOME trees to make houses but let others stand so that we can have trees for future needs and wants.

 

We need to burn fuel to heat our homes and supply energy for industry and to make food for our population but do we really need so many cars and SUVs?

 

Of course, I'm speaking in general terms. Yes, I'm glossing over a lot of points but I think you get the thrust of what I'm talking about. Basically, I classify myself as a "Conservationist" but not an "Environmentalist."

 

I see the "Environmentalist" as one of those people who wear scruffy beards and flannel shirts, who run around the forest hugging bunnies and trees and singing "Kumbaya." I see myself as a "Conservationist" who doesn't like to use too much of our environmental resources unless we need it but who will use them when necessary. The "Environmentalist" tries to push his agenda on others while the "Conservationist" tries to think pragmatically and hopes to encourage others to do the same.

 

The difference is subtle but important.

 

So, when somebody starts shouting, "Global Warming," I usually shout back, "Bullshit!" It's not because I don't believe we have to conserve our environmental resources. It's because I think they are pushing some politically motivated agenda which I don't subscribe to.

 

I'm going to use that old saw I always pull out in discussions like this... People who sit around in coffee shops and whine about the environment are the very same people who drive around in SUVs and destroy the environment in other ways. That one cup of "Sumatran Gold" coffee they drank and that one turn of the ignition key on their Hummers (God! I am so glad they don't make those damned things anymore!) has likely killed or prevented the births of enough animals to make an entire fur coat!

 

Yes, I am worried about global warming but, no, I don't think Al Gore has the solution.

 

Instead, I'm going to spit out my coffee, turn my thermostat down to 60º F and put on my fur coat.

 

If more people would do that, we'd all be a lot better off!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many thoughtful posts on this topic. Locally, "in my neck of the woods" in the northern part of the central valley of California it has been in the mid 20's to low 30's every morning for the past week (yes, I've been wearing my fur jacket every morning and evening for that matter...and I'm in it now).

 

Tricia: carbon dioxide (CO2) is THE greenhouse gas. Normal/classic/historic atmospheric CO2 concentrations are 0.03%. Recently I was reading a scientific article in which the authors wrote that atmospheric CO2 concentration was 0.04%. Now on the surface, 0.03% to 0.04% seems almost completely irrelevant because it (CO2 concentration) represents such a small component to the total atmosphere. However, if we look at the relative change in CO2 concentration, it represents a 33% increase in total CO2 concentration! So now the next question is: where does CO2 come from? The biggest culprit appears to be exhaust pipes of cars, factories, airplanes, and yes, HUMANS and all animals! But we have to remember that the concentration of ANYTHING is dependent upon two factors: how quickly the factor of interest is being produced versus how quickly the same factor is removed or cleared. NOTE: my usual context for this is fuel in the blood of exercising humans, but this applies to components in the air as well. Apparently the largest contribution of rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations is the destruction of rain forest. So in this regard, I am an environmentalist as the rain forest absorbs MUCH CO2 as well as provides a habitat for an incredibly diverse amount of species, both plant and animal. NOTE: on the local level, we should all plant a tree in our yards (really). We have a HUGE old Valley Oak in our front yard...but I digress. The destruction of rain forest is a topic on its own that lies in economics land use and many factors that cannot be discussed in our little forum. Indeed many groups and federal governments are collaborating to address the conservation of rain forest.

 

Mr. Barguzin: I very much appreciate your definition or deliniation of "climate v. weather". As I mentioned above it has been in the 20's and low 30s where I live for the past week or so and is forecast to be this way for the next week or so. You mentioned the "Old Chaos Theory". Is there an updated theory? Admittedly I have not kept up with chaos theory. But I thought it was: "if a butterfly flaps its wings in Florida, it will result in a storm in Seattle". I know I am splitting hairs, as my mother used to say, but it is the same idea. I'll get my Chaos Theory book out to check.

 

Coyote 1: I don't disbleive the "1,200 toxins" in babies statement, but what was your source of information? For all we know, this could be LESS than what appeared in babies 100 years ago. Afterall, when many of us were children, lead-based paint was EVERYWHERE! Further, as recently as one generation ago, mercury was readily used. Indeed I have pulled mercury switches out of my house (in NY) which was built in about 1917. Lastly, asbestos abatement is HUGE right now. Think of all the industries that used asbestos. How many of you have done brake jobs? I do those regularly and have since I got my first truck, a 1975 Ford Courier (many fond memories...NO FUR, motorcycle racing). The brake pad material as recently as the 80's was asbestos-based. Again, I don't dispute the chemical statement, but overall we as a society are reducing exposure to dangerous chemicals. For example, try to get R-12 refrigerant, you can't because it was tied to ozone depletion. R-12 refrigerant was in EVERY air conditioning system in every car or home around the world! Lastly, an interesting (I think) vignette: in my first or second year at UC Berekely (aka Cal) an article appeared in the Daily Cal about "organically grown produce". It cited evidence from Bruce Ames' lab that found that organically grown produce actually had MORE carcinogens in them than "standardly grown produce" (he compared broccoli to broccoli and carrots to carrots and so forth). The finding was surprising, but Ames reasoned that plants have really only one defense mechanism, chemical warfare. Now of course anyone who has pruned roses knows this isn't exactly true. But the point is, we are finding chemicals everywhere. Hopefully all our respective livers are able to clear the toxins and that they are NOT fat soluble. Oh yeah ONE LAST thing: you can hardly find a metal plater (e.g. chrome plating, nickel plating, etc.) in the state of California anymore. All the chemicals are "too toxic".

 

Worker: I like how you lay out the facts. This is excellent! We ALL must look at the evidence. However, you let your personal views enter into your comment. That was something to the effect of: "I BELIEVE anyone who pushes global warming...I THINK they are pushing some politically-motivated agenda which I don't subscribe to." First I WHOLE-HEARTEDLY agree with your statement about Al Gore. That guy has no scientific background whatsoever! Plus he's a hypocrit! His heating bill is rumored to by upward of $2,000! I will be the first to admit that I have not verified this. I don't disagree that much of the rhetoric surrounding "global warming" is politically-motivated. But we ALL MUST separate our "love" from the evidence. What is the evidence? The evidience shows that world-wide global temperatures are rising. World-wide there have been larger and more destructive stroms.

 

To me the bigger question is: what is the cause? Sspecifically, is man responsible for global warming? I am at the point to say yes we are responsible for global warming. I know many do not subscribe to that. That is why we must disaccoicate ourselves from "what we love" and simply look at the evidence. Because all future decisions on things like two-stroke motorcycles rain forest DEFORESTATION, emmision controls from cars as opposed to factories, or airplanes. The air quality in China. On that alone, I don't want to buy Chinese-made products...I know this sounds at least somewhat racist. It is not. I wrote a letter of recommendation for a very fine Chinese young man to gain his U.S. citizenship. The statement is based simply on: Do we want to support a government/society that has almost a complete disregard for the envirnoment and often times its workers? Granted it is almost impossible to NOT buy something manufacturered in China. But I do try.

 

Am I an environmentalist? I probably am. But I am probably more like Mr B. a conservationist. However, I LOVE two-stroke motorcycles, and the government and EPA has declared that they are EVIL! Even though motocycles contribute LESS THAN 2% OF ALL AIR POLLUTION!! Where does the the other 98% come from? Factories, airplanes, automoblies, electrical genrating plants. What do we do about the other 98%??

 

My soap box: I've commuted by bicycle for about 35 years now. How many animals have I saved by not buying gasoline? NOTE: this partly justifies me spending the $$ for my fur to my wife. Not to mention that I have "saved" many animals by communitng by bicycle. You may all translate this as: I'm a tight ass!

 

At any rate, perhaps we should ask our friends from down under about global warming. There have been VERY HIGH temperatures as well as wild fires in australia. I have read about temperatures as high as 50 degrees Centigrade. Is this accurate?

 

O.K. gotta ride my bicycle 8 miles to work (and yes I do this in the rain and at night...that's why fenders and headlights were invented).

 

Sorry for carrying on so long.

 

JA

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wrote "I believe" and "I think" because, as my philosophy professor taught, how do we really know anything? We only THINK we know things and, we only BELIEVE what we think is true.

 

Those bunny-hugging environmentalists really are pushing an agenda because they only THINK they know what they think they believe. I say "I think" and "I believe" because I think I know the limits of what I think I know. (You know? )

 

Descartes once posited, "Cogito ergo sum." Ambrose Bierce, on the other hand, once posted his rebuttal thus:

“Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum -- "I think that I think, therefore I think that I am;" as close an approach to certainty as any philosopher has yet made.”

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wrote "I believe" and "I think" because, as my philosophy professor taught, how do we really know anything? We only THINK we know things and, we only BELIEVE what we think is true.

 

By your logic, we should throw science out the window and go by either religious beliefs or personal beliefs. We know we have nerve endings in the tips of our fingers. Anatomical studies have proven that. That's why we do not stick our fingers into fire. By your logic, if you think you're superhuman and immune to pain, you should prove that by sticking your fingertips into fire.

 

Tricia

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually Worker has nailed it! All scientific research simply provides evidence. It NEVER proves a thing! It can demonstrate what things are NOT though. It can provide bits and pieces of information to help to develop and/or refine a hypothesis, or if the hypothesis is supported time and again, then all the data that support the hypothesis allow the hypothesis to become a theory.

 

But to give Tricia credit, we can only believe what we think to be correct (hopefully what the evidence supports).

 

I know, it sounds like a circular argument. But we have to move in small steps.

 

JA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I am saying is that thought and belief are based on knowledge but knowledge has limits. Therefore belief has limits, too. This is called the Horizon of Possibility. What you know affects what you think.

 

I understand that my beliefs have limits and, though I am not always successful, I try to expand my knowledge to expand the limits of my beliefs. I try to expand my Horizon of Possibility whenever I reasonably can.

 

I say that the difference between me and the bunny huggers is that I try to understand the world while they cling to dogmatic belief systems. I try to encourage others to expand their knowledge while they simply try to force their views on others.

 

No, we should not throw science out the window. That's what the bunny huggers might have us do because without greater knowledge, they have more opportunity to force their views on others.

 

You don't have to stick your hand into a fire to know that you will get burned. There are other ways to prove or disprove whether fire burns. You don't need to be Superman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coyote 1: I don't disbleive the "1,200 toxins" in babies statement, but what was your source of information? For all we know, this could be LESS than what appeared in babies 100 years ago. Afterall, when many of us were children, lead-based paint was EVERYWHERE! Further, as recently as one generation ago, mercury was readily used. Indeed I have pulled mercury switches out of my house (in NY) which was built in about 1917. Lastly, asbestos abatement is HUGE right now. Think of all the industries that used asbestos. How many of you have done brake jobs? I do those regularly and have since I got my first truck, a 1975 Ford Courier (many fond memories...NO FUR, motorcycle racing). The brake pad material as recently as the 80's was asbestos-based. Again, I don't dispute the chemical statement, but overall we as a society are reducing exposure to dangerous chemicals. For example, try to get R-12 refrigerant, you can't because it was tied to ozone depletion. R-12 refrigerant was in EVERY air conditioning system in every car or home around the world! Lastly, an interesting (I think) vignette: in my first or second year at UC Berekely (aka Cal) an article appeared in the Daily Cal about "organically grown produce". It cited evidence from Bruce Ames' lab that found that organically grown produce actually had MORE carcinogens in them than "standardly grown produce" (he compared broccoli to broccoli and carrots to carrots and so forth). The finding was surprising, but Ames reasoned that plants have really only one defense mechanism, chemical warfare. Now of course anyone who has pruned roses knows this isn't exactly true. But the point is, we are finding chemicals everywhere. Hopefully all our respective livers are able to clear the toxins and that they are NOT fat soluble. Oh yeah ONE LAST thing: you can hardly find a metal plater (e.g. chrome plating, nickel plating, etc.) in the state of California anymore. All the chemicals are "too toxic".

 

 

I first learned about the chemical toxins in a babies system from a grad. student attending Dartmouth University in 2009. His thesis was focused on how chemicals in our environment interact with our food chain and what happens as we consume them or breathe them in. In testing the blood of new babies and their birth mothers is how they made the unintended discovery of all the chemicals in the human organism.

 

Unfortunately in North America most people are very myopic. They tend to think that they are the only ones that are impacting the environment. When well wellll; over half the world’s population has on concern for the environment what so ever. For one example in both South Am. and throughout most Asia the byproducts after tanning a fur is simply dumped into the open water ways (lots of lead). Leopard, lion and tiger skins to mention a few are highly prized in Asia. Those furs are considered to be a major status symbol of achievement when used as a decoration in someone’s home or worn as a garment (as recent as the late 1960’s lion skins were prized in the US and were used in TV commercials in the US). I can sight 100’s more examples of how chemicals are misused and discarded into the global environment: However this You Tube Vid. does a much better job: (Warning explicit!!!) Dangerous Job: Tanner, by National Geographic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know for certain if "Global Warming" is human caused or natural caused. I tend to believe that it is human caused simply by the number of researchers who so far exceed those who believe the opposite. BUT, I have for instance listened to qualified speakers who said that our researchers who believe it is human caused look at a database of information that is way too short. In other words, I don't know for sure.

 

But I DO KNOW one thing. It does not really matter. That is, we cannot keep dumping all of this waste into the air, into the seas, into the oceans, into the ground. We can't keep ruining our planet like we are doing with absolutely NO concern for others just so that we can live with more beautiful things in life like huge boats and a third gas guzzling car or a huge truck. Doing this knowing that our grandchildren even will not be able to live the life like we do just because we are so greedy!

 

I DO KNOW that if Global Warming will get us to change our ways no matter what it is causing that can be nothing but good. If the actual warming is man made, and we suddenly begin to realize how stupid we are being, then just maybe we can help things out a bit. If that warming is NOT man made but natural and it still causes us to change our ways and begin to respect our home - the earth - then we have done something VERY positive as a result of it.

 

We win either way.

 

And folks, it is hard to beat odds like that!

 

With that I will stay away from this as it is really off topic.

 

W

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To All: Great discourse! WF: You are absolutely right, this is an "off topic" topic. That being said, Worker: your comment about perception is spot-on! I learend in a class (sorry, I cannot reference) that when some of the first Europeans landed on what is now the U.S., the Native Americans had no concpet of a ship, so they essentially did not "see" the ship. Interesting concept. I know I cannot explain it.

 

Coyote1: I recall learning early in my college career about cancer rates as a function of one's profession. Chemists were at the top of the list. I can think of one right off the bat, Marie Curie. She literally discovered radioactivity. She also died from cancer due to exposure of various radioactive compounds. Unfortunately for Dr. Curie, she was handling high-energy radioactive compounds. Next on the list were leather tanners. This was in the 70's. Hopefully, OSHA as well as environmental groups have set up appropriate guidelines for chemical use and protection as well as disposal. That being said this is yet another reason to buy not only fur products, but any products that are produced with the use of chemicals have reasonable safety and disposal guidelines that minimize the risk to workers and the environment. I worked with radioactive material (NOT like Madam Curie) and I can personally attest to the copius documentation required as to where every bit of radioactivity goes and method of disposal. NOTE: I'm not saying it's bad, on the contrary it is absolutely necessary. It is the reality of doing that type of work. I used 14C and 3H, which are both VERY LOW energy, in biological type research.

 

WF: Again you hit the nail on the head! At the end of the day (I really don't like that saying, but it fits), does it really matter what the cause of global warming is? I tend to look at the overwhelming evidence that supports "human-caused". However, we cannot ignore the "small window in geologic time" argument. Either way, it does behoove us to be prudent with all our resources and do what we can to reduce our resource use and at the same time reduce our impact on the environment, hence my commuting by bicycle.

 

I'm going to follow WF's lead and sign off from this topic. But it has been interesting!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...when some of the first Europeans landed on what is now the U.S., the Native Americans had no concpet of a ship, so they essentially did not "see" the ship. Interesting concept. I know I cannot explain it. ...

 

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -- Arthur C. Clarke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had intention of posting on this topic anymore.

 

However on last night’s national new on the ABC TV network in the USA. It was announced that scientists around the globe are in full agreement that during this past year (2012) the temperature has in fact gone up by 1degree/ .7cel.; warming the entire world. They are also in full agreement that this trend will continue and that the weather patterns are definitely changing. The reporter also went on to say that the poles are melting at an accelerated rate and that the sea levels will be 4feet/117cm within the next 50years.

 

I find it intresting that out of no where you posted this topic and the fact that the climate is without a dought changing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...