Let's Be Sensible Please

[Zeatrix 0]

I agree, he's both right and wrong.What makes it a "main" greenhouse gas is the fact that human activity releases it in such large quantities.

[Zeatrix 0]

That's why we are called the leader of the free world.....wait, is that a good thing?Hey Z, I read this when I got back and thought it was interesting since it came from a very far right leaning magazine that I subscribe too. Tell me what you think.http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2...0622.shtml?s=os

I will, but not right now. I'll get back to you.

[seemorenuts 0]

The science will work itself out eventually, with the most accurate window being 20-50 years into the future.NoBBiR is pointing this debate in the right direction--the problem doesn't even have to be global warming--most of us don't want to change, but if we did, we'd prefer that someone else would accidentally choose the appropriate leadership and we might tag along.I find it more productive to see this as a political, sociological and philosophical problem.As for the U.S, they get the politicians that are most adept at raising money, hardly a ringing endorsement given the environment laden with lobbyists--there are relatively simple solutions for this that can be communicated to the most rudimentary voter but it isn't done.Too bad Warren Buffett and Stephen Jobs won't take the big jobs, with the 'evil yet frugal' Bill Gates as Secretary of the Treasury I can't see where you could go wrong--they're all great capitalists, right?Even if we assume guys like them wouldn't take the job, it does direct the debate to the core of the problem (if indeed there are any).

[seemorenuts 0]

http://www.livescience.com/technology/dest...earth_mp-1.htmlUse the end of the world ideas to amuse yourselves, savor every steak or juicy morsel of fruit you eat, luxuriate in your air conditioned homes, it's the power of positive thinking. Don't worry about recycling until everyone does it, relax. Enjoy!

[Zeatrix 0]

I guess you are being a little funny, but the sad part is that people ACTUALLY think like that.The whole "if everyone else ain't doing it, why should I" mentality that a big part of the worlds population inhibit is so scary to me that I sometimes crawl up in a corner and shake uncontrollably. On another positive note: Recently I've been seeing A LOT of hybrid cars (mainly Priuses) driving around in Sweden. I guess they must be selling fairly good, which is encouraging. Ethanol cars are also growing in popularity.My dream car for sure would be a hybrid car that runs on 100% ethanol, that'd be sweet

[akoff 0]

Aluminum cans biodegrade in about 150k years correct? Isn’t that recycling?Sorry Z just joking, we went through a heat wave here on the east coast where it was about 95 to 98 for 10 days…I actually thought of you once while bitching about the heat…but I continued playing golf and fired up the AC so we made through!!

[Zeatrix 0]

[Alina 0]

Global warming is made up to boost agendas.:1) Scientists to get attention2) To put price of oil up3) To stop providing services on grounds of saving environment e.g. only collecting trash once a month4) Put up air fares

[MyPlayIsRAB 0]

Global warming is made up to boost agendas.:1) Scientists to get attention2) To put price of oil up3) To stop providing services on grounds of saving environment e.g. only collecting trash once a month4) Put up air fares

i didnt read your post but Alina was my grandmothers name and its also my neices name

[Zeatrix 0]

Global warming is made up to boost agendas.:1) Scientists to get attention2) To put price of oil up3) To stop providing services on grounds of saving environment e.g. only collecting trash once a month4) Put up air fares

Yeah, and denying global warming is made up to boost other agendas:1) Keep increasing short term profits2) Keep people buying oil3) Give deniers attention4) Give ignorant people like you an excuse for wasting resources and dumping our mistakes on future generations.

[Alina 0]

Yeah, and denying global warming is made up to boost other agendas:1) Keep increasing short term profits2) Keep people buying oil3) Give deniers attention4) Give ignorant people like you an excuse for wasting resources and dumping our mistakes on future generations.

So sanctimonious-exemplifying environmatl fascism. I bet you have not even read any of the so-called science, but relied on articles. Current weather statistics do not deviate significantly from the long term trend over the last 500,000 years. It's people like Al Gore peddling non-perr reviewed research that is worrying your little head.

[akoff 0]

"I bet you have not even read any of the so-called science, but relied on articles."I would be guilty of that"Current weather statistics do not deviate significantly from the long term trend over the last 500,000 years."From the articles i have read that seems to be the correct."It's people like Al Gore peddling non-perr reviewed research that is worrying your little head."Anything Al gore is pushing I am pretty confident I will disagree with. The man is a hypocrite with absolutely no moral compass and the back backbone of a jelly fish. He would rather tell everyone else how to live then do anything productive…and raise taxes so he can spew money to his personal agendas. Fortunately after this election he will go back in a cave not be heard from ever again, if we are lucky. Unless the NY Times or US News needs to muddy the water.

[aucu 3]

water vapour is the strongest greenhouse gas, in that it has a greater effect gram for gram than CO2..but i am pretty sure it's the increase over the yrs of CO2 production that makes it the main greenhouse gas..i have read the argument for this line of debate, but i am too wiped from the long weekend to concentrate right now..

The greenhouse effect is necessary for most life on our planet, without it global temperatures would be significantly lower. The greenhouse effect of water vapor is by far the greatest thermal contributor to atmospheric warming.As someone who has studied climatology and continues to work in the field of Geo-Chemistry I find the whole public debate on this issue to be extremely distorted.

[Zeatrix 0]

So sanctimonious-exemplifying environmatl fascism. I bet you have not even read any of the so-called science, but relied on articles. Current weather statistics do not deviate significantly from the long term trend over the last 500,000 years. It's people like Al Gore peddling non-perr reviewed research that is worrying your little head.

Then you obviously haven't followed this thread :DI've spent hundreds of hours reading papers, articles, watching books and documentaries. I've spent almost as much time reading "the opposite view" as the "sanctimonious-exemplifying environmatl fascism".I watched An Inconvenient Truth, I watched The Great Global Warming Swindle. I read realclimate.org, I've read global warming denier websites.Do I have a climatology degree? No. But I do have enough knowledge of biology/chemistry to understand most of the concepts. Enough knowledge to know the difference between meteorology and climatology, you seem not to. You obviously think I'm one of many who just get in contact with one source and trusts it blindly. You couldn't be more wrong. I've spent all this time researching this because I want to be very sure that I don't go on a crusade over a false cause. Now I do recognize that there is a slight possibility that the global warming movement is a HUGE conspiracy to overthrow the oil producing countries, but that chance is so slim I'm willing to take it, I'm not that big on conspiracy theories.It's ironic that you accuse me of not reading peer reviewed papers when it's so blatantly obvious that you haven't. I've challenged other posters here to link to an up to date (no older than 2 years) scientific peer reviewed article published in a well respected journal like Science or Nature that completely challenges the notion that there is such a thing as human caused global warming. Until this day I have seen none such link. I on the other hand have posted to quite a few sources, not the least the IPCC reports, which in case you didn't know, are all based solely on peer reviewed publicly available papers.Finally, I find it extremely funny that you don't seem to realize that my response to your post was meant to be equally exaggerated as yours, but I'm an environmental fascist, and you are what? Heck, I've never been a member of any environmental organization or group, I've never demonstrated against anything and I think nuclear power is a good idea, but sure, I'm an environmental zealot.

Anything Al gore is pushing I am pretty confident I will disagree with. The man is a hypocrite with absolutely no moral compass and the back backbone of a jelly fish. He would rather tell everyone else how to live then do anything productive…and raise taxes so he can spew money to his personal agendas.

I think this might be a very big part of the problem. You guys seem to think of Gore as the "inventor" of global warming, when all he is is just the most loud one. My bet is that you refuse to believe whatever he says just because he is who he is, regardless of the level of truth behind it. I really wonder how things might have been different if someone like, say, Ronald Reagan, if he very alive today, would be equally vocal about it. Purely hypothetical, sure, but still an interesting mind game. Hey, when I think about it, Gov Schwarzenegger is very vocal about environmental issues, but somehow I doubt he has the same weight as Reagan (figuratively speaking of course )I wonder what Gore has done to you? Did he support tax raises that hurt you or what? Did he raise them from 0.05% to 0.06%??? Stop crying and move to Sweden, our 52% will do you good

The greenhouse effect is necessary for most life on our planet, without it global temperatures would be significantly lower. The greenhouse effect of water vapor is by far the greatest thermal contributor to atmospheric warming.As someone who has studied climatology and continues to work in the field of Geo-Chemistry I find the whole public debate on this issue to be extremely distorted.

Of course the debate will be distorted if people that don't understand the underlying factors debate. And they will of course seem even more so to someone who REALLY understands it, such as yourself. But the underlying issue, when you strip away all the complicated layers that only scientists should worry about, can still be discussed. That discussion, for example, should we do something or wait until it might be too late is very valid regardless if you understand the ifs and whys. I agree though in essence of what you say. When I read articles that proclaim things like "the dangerous carbon dioxide", I too feel that it is unnecessarily misleading.

[akoff 0]

I really wonder how things might have been different if someone like, say, Ronald Reagan, if he very alive today, would be equally vocal about it. LOL if Reagan said it would be 1. Correct and 2. reasonable...the man was an awesome leader and we neeeeeed someone like him again!!! Where are you Nuet...LOL i am kidding about that.I wonder what Gore has done to you? Gore was the stupid part of the Clinton years...the same years that we are still paying the price for today. Had slick Willie not buried his head in the sand for 8 years many of the international problems wouldn't be as large or nasty as they are....of coure Mr. Bush has done little to help with that himself (see need reagan comments again)Did he support tax raises that hurt you or what? Did he raise them from 0.05% to 0.06%??? Stop crying and move to Sweden, our 52% will do you good When you get done it all I pay more then 50 percent in tax...federal, state, local, sales, property, cap gains...on mutual funds i have not liquidated...god i hate that one...and we can't even inspect a damn bridge anymore. We spent 2.5 bazzilon $$ overseas but ignore our infrastructure.....see i can bitch about republicans as well!

[Zeatrix 0]

1. Correct and 2. reasonable...the man was an awesome leader and we neeeeeed someone like him again!!! Where are you Nuet...LOL i am kidding about that.That was my very point! If Reagan were alive and he indeed, like you said, was correct, he'd acknowledge the fact that global warming is problem that needs to be dealt with. Your views would probably be different then...Gore was the stupid part of the Clinton years...the same years that we are still paying the price for today. Had slick Willie not buried his head in the sand for 8 years many of the international problems wouldn't be as large or nasty as they are....of coure Mr. Bush has done little to help with that himself (see need reagan comments again)Strange that. In Sweden for example, and my guess is in a lot of other places around the globe, the Clinton years are considered to be a high point of America. It's actually quite the opposite of what you seem to think. When you get done it all I pay more then 50 percent in tax...federal, state, local, sales, property, cap gains...on mutual funds i have not liquidated...god i hate that one...and we can't even inspect a damn bridge anymore. We spent 2.5 bazzilon $$ overseas but ignore our infrastructure.....see i can bitch about republicans as well!I was talking about tax revenue as a percentage of GDP. The numbers are a few years old, but it's hard to feel sorry for you when you see a list like this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...rcentage_of_GDP

[akoff 0]

I was talking about tax revenue as a percentage of GDP. The numbers are a few years old, but it's hard to feel sorry for you when you see a list like this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...rcentage_of_GDP

Oh man i only wish that would be accurate...unforunatley like most statistics it doesn't show the full story. We have a graduated tax system here in the States, the more you make, the higher percentage of income you pay ( i think it is a democrat plan to make sure you don't work to hard so you don't need the government LOL ). I guess i have been lucky but - the federal rate is 37 percent, i think, maybe 36) - SS tax is 8 or 9 percent - state tax is several points, i am not even sure how many, little less then 10 i believe.- i pay 10k a year on my home for property tax.- I would be scared to look at my property taxes on investment real estate but at least i have rent to cover it...but then i pay tax on the rental income.- Taxes on my business and business property- sales tax on most purchases of 6 percentthis unfortunately isn't all of them...add it up!As far as a world view goes...well i don't know what to tell you. I would guess that is the case due to Clinton sticking his head in the sand and pretending there was nothing going on. That is just an extension of Bush not being willing to keep his hands out of anything....I am not a huge fan of either, I just happen to hate Clinton ( if his nasty bride wins this election ). I happen to believe nothing the US government does is as good or bad as portrayed in the media...there may be some merit to the hate, it also may just be jealousy....whatever.The reality is what Bill did was put everything in a pretty box and people just bought it forever. It was kind of funny...many business people do the same thing...called marketing and sales. There was little substance to anything he did.

[seemorenuts 0]

Zeatrix.Let's assume your argument is completely correct.Why should people who have no children or plans for them care?For that matter, why should people who are disenfranchised (poor, outcast, etc.) care?I see this as the death sentence, people don't live long enough to care, and they merely hope that their children will be okay, but their own enjoyment trumps those considerations. Yes, this is stunted but common thinking.Also, though we need community action, we should start with leaders who don't live in mansions, get $400 haircuts and own a gazillion cars to even listen.Back to my beef steak and King Crab legs... yum.

[Zeatrix 0]

Oh man i only wish that would be accurate...unforunatley like most statistics it doesn't show the full story. We have a graduated tax system here in the States, the more you make, the higher percentage of income you pay ( i think it is a democrat plan to make sure you don't work to hard so you don't need the government LOL ). I guess i have been lucky but - the federal rate is 37 percent, i think, maybe 36) - SS tax is 8 or 9 percent - state tax is several points, i am not even sure how many, little less then 10 i believe.- i pay 10k a year on my home for property tax.- I would be scared to look at my property taxes on investment real estate but at least i have rent to cover it...but then i pay tax on the rental income.- Taxes on my business and business property- sales tax on most purchases of 6 percentthis unfortunately isn't all of them...add it up!As far as a world view goes...well i don't know what to tell you. I would guess that is the case due to Clinton sticking his head in the sand and pretending there was nothing going on. That is just an extension of Bush not being willing to keep his hands out of anything....I am not a huge fan of either, I just happen to hate Clinton ( if his nasty bride wins this election ). I happen to believe nothing the US government does is as good or bad as portrayed in the media...there may be some merit to the hate, it also may just be jealousy....whatever.The reality is what Bill did was put everything in a pretty box and people just bought it forever. It was kind of funny...many business people do the same thing...called marketing and sales. There was little substance to anything he did.

Well yes statistics doesn't say it all, but, you don't come close to us :DFirst we have employment tax: 32% this is what the employer pays in tax, so 100:- to employee means 32:- in tax from company to government.Then we have municipal income tax: 30-33% depending on where you live, 100-30=70:-Then we have state income tax for those that make enough 20-25%, you would probably be in 25% 100*0,25=25, 70-25=45:-Then we have 25% sales tax so for the 45:- you pay to buy something 45*0,20=9:- is further taxes. (20% of the price we pay on something we pay is sales tax, which equals 25% on the price before sales tax is added)So, out of the 132:- crowns we make, we get to buy stuff for 36:-, if we indeed are in the highest tax bracket, which is around 66k a year.And yeah, we have property tax and business tax too, and don't forget our gas tax and or energy tax and so on and so forth in absurdum.To top it off, sometimes we pay tax on taxes

[akoff 0]

Alright Z i give...LOL I guess you guys are just getting screwed harder!! That doesn't mean I have to like our system very much.Do I see a future in Switzerland...hmm I hear the alps are nice. I could learn to yoddle, I did watch the Sound of Music when i was kid...it looked like a nice walk!!I has a half drunk conversation with my little borther ( school teacher, Dem...but I love him anyway )about taxes, he made the comment about raising taxes...of course i jumped all over him about. He tried to tell me it was't a big deal blah blah. I said to him "big deal i paid more in taxes then you and your wife make, i don't want to pay more". his responce was quite funny " yea i feel bad for you"....LOL we laughed and had another Crown Royal!! That is a conversation you can only have with family

[Zeatrix 0]

Alright Z i give...LOL I guess you guys are just getting screwed harder!! That doesn't mean I have to like our system very much.Do I see a future in Switzerland...hmm I hear the alps are nice. I could learn to yoddle, I did watch the Sound of Music when i was kid...it looked like a nice walk!!I has a half drunk conversation with my little borther ( school teacher, Dem...but I love him anyway )about taxes, he made the comment about raising taxes...of course i jumped all over him about. He tried to tell me it was't a big deal blah blah. I said to him "big deal i paid more in taxes then you and your wife make, i don't want to pay more". his responce was quite funny " yea i feel bad for you"....LOL we laughed and had another Crown Royal!! That is a conversation you can only have with family

Yeah, if I was the one sitting across the table I'd have a fork in my neck, right? :DThe thing is, you live in comparatively enormous wealth compared to 95% of the worlds population. I don't feel a bit bad for you if you have to pay 5% more tax...

[All_In 0]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/200709...edrawsworldmapsAndrea ThompsonLiveScience Staff WriterLiveScience.com Drastic changes to land and water wrought by climate change are forcing cartographers to redraw their maps of the world.Evidence of the effects of human activities on the Earth's features--through climate change and construction efforts, such as irrigation projects—can clearly be seen in the new edition of The Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World, its editors say. (The atlas is one of the world's oldest and most authoritative atlases; the new edition was published on Sept. 3.)"We can literally see environmental disasters unfolding before our eyes," said Mick Ashworth, editor-in-chief of the atlas. "We have a real fear that in the near future famous geographical features will disappear forever."Shrinking lakesMany of the changes the map-makers have had to make involve the shrinking of lakes and seas and changes to coastlines: * The Aral Sea in Central Asia has shrunk by 75 percent since 1967 (before/after). * Lake Chad in Africa has shrunk by 95 percent since 1963 (before/after). * The Dead Sea is 82 feet (25 meters) lower than it was 50 years ago. * Sections of the Rio Grande and Colorado rivers in North America, the Yellow River in Asia and the Tigris River in the Middle East now dry out in the summer and at some times of the year the rivers don't even reach the sea. * The coastline of Bangladesh had to be redrawn because heavier monsoons and rising sea levels are causing more land to be lost to the ocean. * Some Pacific Islands are also under threat from rising sea levels, including Kiribati, the Marshall Islands, Tokelau, Tuvalu and Vanuatu.Melting ice, rising seasFuture editions of the atlas, which typically is researched by a team of more than 50 cartographers, will take into account changes in Arctic sea ice cover and other changes to lake, river, ocean and forest boundaries, as they are affected by the changing climate.Experts with the atlas are keeping a close watch on the Inupiat village of Shishmaref, Alaska, where temperatures have steadily risen over the last three decades and the sea is encroaching at the rate of about 10 feet (3 meters) per year, which could make it the first U.S. community forced to move due to a warming climate, the atlas makers say.Villages on the low-lying islands of southeast India and south Bangladesh, called the Sundarbans, are also at risk, and some of the islands have already disappeared under rising seas.The new edition of the atlas also notes that 40 percent of the world's coral reefs have been destroyed or degraded in recent decades, and that more than 1 percent of tropical forest is cleared every year to make way for farmland.On a more positive note, the atlas shows that 13 percent of the world's land surface is now within designated protected areas worldwide.

[scram 1]

Conjoined bodies of water displace equally. If polar ice cap melting is the cause of rising oceans, then the worlds oceans (that are connected in any way) will rise at a concurrent rate. They will not rise in some places and remain stable in others. If an entire coastal town is about to be inundated because of rising oceans (as opposed to good old fashioned 'Been-Happening-For-The-Past-200-Million-Years' shoreline erosion) that means every coastal city on the planet of a similar elevation is equally at risk, but that doesn't seem to be the case, now does it ???Of course, pesky fluid dynamics just aren't as appealing as this notion that poor Indians are losing their lands once again because of the inconsiderate white man with his big business, big oil, big tobacco, big (insert nefarious successful enterprise deionized by minimum wage losers on the left here)...

[ghoti 0]

Interestingly (or at least I find it interesting) global sea level does not rise equally when ice caps melt. The reason is that you are not just adding water to the oceans, you are also removing ice from specific places. When the ice is there the mass of the ice gravitationally attracts water towards that location and local sea level is higher than it otherwise would be. When the ice melts that gravitational pull disappears and local sea level will actually drop. This effect is reversed far from the ice caps, i.e. somewhat lower than "expected" before melting, bore rise than expected after melting. Each ice cap/glacier is therefore associated with a unique pattern of sea level change if/when it melts and these so-called "sea level fingerprints" are used to identify sources of sea level change.see for example http://www.news.utoronto.ca/bin1/010221a.asp

[scram 1]

"In fact," he continues, "if the entire Greenland ice cap melted, then places relatively close by, like Britain and Newfoundland, would actually see sea levels fall. The reason is fairly simple: despite its small size, the Greenland ice sheet exerts a strong gravitational pull on the seas. As the polar sheet melts, it will exert less pull, resulting in lower - not higher - sea levels around Greenland. Of course, sea levels will rise on average, and as the meltwater moves away from Greenland it will create problems for countries in the Southern Hemisphere. In the same way, melting from the Antarctic will raise sea levels in the Northern Hemisphere, but not in places like Australia."

The next paragraph starts out with this:

To look for evidence of their ideas...