Global Warming: Inevitable Fossil fuels abundant

[Guest Shalomar]

Donny AKA ShalomarFly 2 ROCKS!!!In the 1950's James Calvert, captain of the USS Skate did research on the North Polar region in preparation for his voyage there. (Read "Surface at the Pole".) He came upon a Russian theory which he outlined in his book. It explored what would happen if the polar cap melted. On the surface considering the time, the Russians would have loved it, an opening of their ports which might shift the superpower balance. The Skate was the second nuclear sub ever made, all Russian subs could not operate under ice long enough to quickly get out of icebound ports. A massive surface deployment from most of their ports in winter would be vulnerable to airstrikes as it plodded behind icebreakers.What would happen? The theory was that the ice cap greatly reduced H20 evaporation. If it were gone there would be massive precipitation and cloud cover over the Northern coastal latitudes. The cooler temperatures caused by clouds inhibiting thermal energy from the sun would result in ice accumulation on land that increasingly would not melt in summer. Eventually, the ice age would progress to the point that so much moisture would be locked up that cloud cover would decrease, leading to warmer temps and the slow retreat of the ice back to the Polar regions. Captain James Calvert advanced the question: "Is this where we are now, a polar cap slowly melting in advance of another ice age?"Whether or not man is accelerating the process with greenhouse gases, if the theory is correct, the next ice age will happen. Many countries are crippling their economies with "emmission taxes" on petroleum products. But how many are investing capital to bury their power lines which will be vulnerable to ice? Other predictions: Weakening or elimination of the Gulf Stream. Less rainfall in the U.S. Southwest leading to the loss of power from Hoover dam, putting more stress on a fragile network. Due to the Gulf stream not being as it was, Britain would experience the equivilent of the worst winter in modern history every seven years, struggling to keep ITS ports clear of ice. Weakening of the monsoon. Warming of Siberia, leading to Ronald Reagan getting the last laugh cuz we might just follow his famous Gridiron Dinner suggestion of keeping the grain and exporting the farmers. Did I mention a LOT more watermain breaks in certain regions?What about petroleum products? Notice how the term "fossil fuel" has fallen out of favor? Many scientists believe leftover hydrocarbons from the earth's formation seep UP and are trapped by rock formations, not Dinasouar material. Leading to the question- just how finite are they?If governments don't act properly, the best thing citizens can do to prepare is to purchase a used Class A recreational vehicle. Parked in your driveway or stored nearby, you would have access to a supply of fresh water, electricity and warmth with the capability of relocating comfortably in the event of prolonged regional shortages. A more expensive option is to utilise emerging technologies in water filtration and electricity generation to make your house fully self contained. That won't help much if there is an increase in Hurricanes/tornadoes/floods and your house isn't properly built or located.Best Regards, Donny:-wave

[Guest]

The next ice age will happen anyway. The assumption that human action is having such a major influence on the climate as to lead to massive changes in temperature profiles and with that on the worldwide climate patterns is just plain homocentric lunacy. Talk about overinflated egos.The earth is at this time in the later stages of an interglacial. From historical records it's quite clear that during such a period the climate is highly unstable and drastic changes are commonplace.To top that off the models used by the "global warming" advocates are inherently flawed and only use data deliberately selected to show what they want to show. That's not science, it's PR in an effort (highly successful sadly) to gain political and economic power.The entire effect of the Kyoto madness on the climate will be at most a 0.07 degree change in temperature over 50 years. That's about 10 times less than the margin for error in global mean temperature measuring and probably several times less than the natural changes occuring over the same interval.This insignificant change will cost the nations subscribing to this madness several trillion dollars over that same period and bring massive economic hardship so they'll be unable to run an environmentally friendly (TRUE EF, meaning less poison emissions and industrial waste, not just some etherial CO2 emission figure) country in that time. Thus the real effect of Kyoto will be an unchanged climate but devastated countries.

[Guest EasyEd]

Hey All,Jerome is right the next ice ages will come. The reason is because there are two cycles at work. The first is that the earth does not spin on a constant axis. The axis actually wobbles around so that at times the earth from a northern hemisphere perspective is more "laid back" than at other times. This means less solar radiation reaching the earth. The second cycle is the Milankovich cycle which is based upon the fact that the earths orbit around the sun is not a perfect ellipse - the ellipse wobbles around as well. At times the earth is farther from the sun in winter than at other times. When farther away ice ages occur and really big ones occur when the earth is laid back and far away from the sun in winters. IIRC this second cycle is around 25,000 years in length the first 10,000 years???As for global warming there is no dispute that the earth is warming - it is. The question is how much is due to mankinds activities? I don't know but I suspect man is having an effect. The really key question is -- is any change in temperature desirable from the perspective of maintaining societal stability and the natural world in a stable state? If not then we should try to stem the tide of global warming. For example - if we want the midwest of the US to remain prime farmland then we don't want warming that changes climate so that it is too arid to farm. Likewise if we want the Colorado river to have enough water in it to keep water flowing through the pipe to Los Angeles then we don't want global warming. The earth, solar system and the universe doesn't care if the earth warms or cools - only mankind does or should.I have yet to hear a single intelligent conversation about global warming. The issue is not and has never been who's fault is it. The issue really is do we want it or not? We may not have a choice but if we do then we should be thinking hard about the effects and not doing all this silly prattle about fault. Some people say that change is the only constant and so "bring it on!" mankind has always had to adapt and we will adapt in the future. Sure there will be loosers and winners and big changes but so what that is our nature. Others recognize that with what over 6 billion people and growing - fast - on this earth we need stability or there may be major societal upheaval and with the presence of nuclear and biological weapons we can't afford major changes - the consequences may be too dire. Who is right - I don't know - I just think it's a darn shame we can't even phrase the discussion intelligently.Take Care! -Ed-

[Guest Shalomar]

Donny AKA ShalomarFly 2 ROCKS!!!I agree with you on Kyoto. The worst part is that the stifling of economies will lead to less preparedness should several possible scenarios occur.I am not sure if I agree about the "flawed models". If you mean data purporting to prove observed changes are directly the cause of man, I do agree. The part about carbon dioxide WARMING the planet- cloud cover will increase leading to cooling. Venus is roasting under its clouds some say, but what percentage of solar energy does it recieve compared to us? Cloud cover is just insulation, like the hair on your head that at if long and thick makes you feel hot in summer. If you try shaving your head in the winter you will feel colder without a hat than before.But ongoing research by the Woods Hole Institute seems convincing. You probably already know about it, since you stated the earth is in the early stages of an interglacial. They are tracking North Atlantic salinity levels, and are finding it to be decreasing. Ships are reporting open water in places unheard-of in modern times. Massive northward movements of creatures used to Arctic-type weather are becoming commonplace. No one knows at what salinity level or time the Gulf Stream will cease to be an effective climactic force. Resources should be expended to prepare for the effects, not POSSIBLY delay them for an insignifigant amount of time only to be caught flatfooted if the Gulf Stream follows the worst-case scenario of twenty years further operation then a sudden shutoff. You seem to be knowledgeable on the subject. Are these things I heard true?1 A tree in the process of natural decay consumes oxegen and releases cabon dioxide almost equal to the photosynthesises changes of its lifetime.2. Methane gas is excreted by termites. Thus, an agrarian economy that cuts down trees for cropland/grazing can be a major contributer of "green house" gases.There were a couple other things, but I forget now. But in any case I am "preaching to the choir". I forget the author's name, but "Politics in the Age of Scarcity" is a good read.The Russians have vast bodies of research on the polar regions. James Calvert used their data and came to a seemingly accurate conclusion. Are they making any attempt to set the record straight? I can't remember hearing their position regarding Kyoto.A totally separate theory: (Well, maybe not entirely separate.) Scientists at Amundsen station have been tracking anomalies in the "spin pole". One theory traces their origin to resevoir construction. Water trapped at higher elevations, like a skater spinning with her arms over her head, it's harder not to wobble. Just wait till the Yangtzee (can't spell it) basin fills completely.Best Regards, Donny:-wave

[Guest]

Of course carbon dioxide causes the planet to retain a larger percentage of incoming solar radiation than the planet would without it.BUT the influence of human activity on the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is miniscule. An example: the 1980 eruption of Mnt St Helens put more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in a day than the entire industrial age had since the invention of the steam engine.While such large eruptions are rare the total of natural emissions of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse gasses" is even without them several orders of magnitude larger than all human emissions combined.This means that even if the data about the planet heating up is correct (and it's heavily disputed because the data points are not chosen over any long period nor are they properly processed in the models used by the global warming alarmists) the influence of human action of that warming is negligable.

[Guest EasyEd]

Hey All,Comments inserted...>Donny AKA Shalomar>Fly 2 ROCKS!!!>>I agree with you on Kyoto. The worst part is that the stifling>of economies will lead to less preparedness should several>possible scenarios occur.>The issue here is that developed economies have the ability to absorb environmental costs that undeveloped economies do not. Ultimately the earth has to have an economically level playing field. The question is how do we get there? Many see the Kyoto protocol as a wealth distributing mechanism. Maybe it is but the question arises - do the developed nations (Europe, USA, Australia, etc) have any right to maintain their dominance over world wealth when so many under developed nations are trying to develop the same standard of living that we have. If you agree that we all can't keep polluting then why don't underdeveloped nations have a "right" to "catch up" even if at the expense of developed nations? Once again this fundamental point isn't discussed.>>I am not sure if I agree about the "flawed models". If you>mean data purporting to prove observed changes are directly>the cause of man, I do agree. The part about carbon dioxide>WARMING the planet- cloud cover will increase leading to>cooling. Venus is roasting under its clouds some say, but what>percentage of solar energy does it recieve compared to us?>Cloud cover is just insulation, like the hair on your head>that at if long and thick makes you feel hot in summer. If you>try shaving your head in the winter you will feel colder>without a hat than before.>You need to look into the use of CO2 to create warmer environments and enhance photosynthesis in greenhouses - a common practice.>But ongoing research by the Woods>Hole Institute seems convincing. You probably already know>about it, since you stated the earth is in the early stages of>an interglacial. They are tracking North Atlantic salinity>levels, and are finding it to be decreasing. Ships are>reporting open water in places unheard-of in modern times.>Massive northward movements of creatures used to Arctic-type>weather are becoming commonplace. No one knows at what>salinity level or time the Gulf Stream will cease to be an>effective climactic force. Resources should be expended to>prepare for the effects, not POSSIBLY delay them for an>insignifigant amount of time only to be caught flatfooted if>the Gulf Stream follows the worst-case scenario of twenty>years further operation then a sudden shutoff. >No arguement here maybe we can only forestall inevitable changes for a shortperiod of time maybe 20 to 50 or a hundred years. However that is a lot of time from a human perspective - even if only a minute in earth's history.>>You seem to be knowledgeable on the subject. Are these things>I heard true?>>1 A tree in the process of natural decay consumes oxegen and>releases cabon dioxide almost equal to the photosynthesises>changes of its lifetime.>I don't know about this although I tend to mostly doubt it. Some species of trees decay very fast (aspen for example) while others decay very slowly (redwood for example). An aspen tree's usual lifetime is on the order of 50 to 70 years yet it decays in less than 10. Redwood lives for 3 or 4 hundred years and decays in far less I suspect but don't know for sure. How much of the carbon in the wood is released to the atmosphere versus how much ends up in the soil (or other carbon pools) I don't know. I do know that wood used in building houses can tie up carbon for a long time! Ultimately I suppose they might have to balance although some of the decay is likely anerobic. I know of no data that directly addresses this.>>2. Methane gas is excreted by termites. Thus, an agrarian>economy that cuts down trees for cropland/grazing can be a>major contributer of "green house" gases.>Methane gas is excreted by most forms of life including humans. Trees do provide a relatively long storage capacity for carbon however recent research is showing grasslands to be major sequesters of carbon as well - particularly native as compared to planted grasslands. There is no question that farming practices that disturb the upper layers of soils or inappropriately incorporated manure as a nutrient source are significant contributors to greenhouse gases. Lots of literature supports this. At the end of the day forests are major sequesters (storers) of greenhouse gases so trading forests for other landuses does increase greenhouse gases in the short term.>Once again in my opinion the issue comes down to how do we want to live on this earth. If we get it wrong mother earth will be merciless with us just as she has been with many species before. Whycan't mankind even get the conversation right?Take Care! -Ed-

[Guest EasyEd]

Hey All,Comments inserted...>Of course carbon dioxide causes the planet to retain a larger>percentage of incoming solar radiation than the planet would>without it.>As I indicated in another post greenhouses often use this to their advanage.>>BUT the influence of human activity on the amount of carbon>dioxide in the atmosphere is miniscule. An example: the 1980>eruption of Mnt St Helens put more carbon dioxide into the>atmosphere in a day than the entire industrial age had since>the invention of the steam engine.>>While such large eruptions are rare the total of natural>emissions of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse gasses" is>even without them several orders of magnitude larger than all>human emissions combined.>Jerome I would like to see any data that supports this! Right now I doubt it - Big Time! Human activity - miniscule??? - Lets see some data!>>This means that even if the data about the planet heating up>is correct (and it's heavily disputed because the data points>are not chosen over any long period nor are they properly>processed in the models used by the global warming alarmists)>the influence of human action of that warming is negligable.>Once again data please showing human impact as negligible. I believe that humans are having an impact but are definitely not the only contributer to global warming. It is clear that the sun, for example, is putting out more energy than in the past. That Donny indicates many of the changes that are occuring that can only be the result of increased temperatures clearly suggests that temperature is increasing. We can argue the causes ad infinitum - but the point is are they good for mankind and if not what should we do about them?Take Care! -Ed-

[Guest Shalomar]

Donny AKA ShalomarFly 2 ROCKS!!!There are no clouds in greenhouses. The warming effect of increased CO2 will be at least partially off set by the reflection of solar energy by increased cloud cover. Of course, the denser structure of CO2 can result in the potential to store more thermal energy. You are saying we should "do something" to prevent global warming. Even if we do, what about preparing for its effects? I don't necassarily buy the theory that third world countries have to advance AT THE COST of advanced ones. I feel the advance of the third world nations will benefit all. There are a lot of geopolitical forces behind the "scant resources" projections. Tie in the support for repressive regimes by developed democratic nations that want their cheaper resources and you have a boiling pot. There are kernels of truth that drive extremist behavior. What if instead of standing beside the Shah with his arm around him and calling him his friend Carter had publicly admonished him about basic inaliable rights? Instead he followed the state department protocol. When the Shah requested entry into the States for medical treatment Carter was told, "You can not refuse a friend of nine presidents". Carter replied, "What will you tell me when they overun our embassy and take our people hostage?" You know the correctness of his prediction. After losing Iran as an ally, we turned to even more unpalatable Iraq. The senior Bush was a major laison to Saddam Hussein. He admonished him that some of his actions were causing bad publicity in the American media. Appeasment at its finest. Bethlehem Steel sold him heavy forging equipment and Kuwait provided financing for tanks with which it was overrun. Leading to troop deployments to Saudi Arabia and further resentment which fueled the planes into the towers as much as jet A. Bush claims we were atacked because we are a beacon of freedom. Pakistan is now a close ally, ever look at THEIR civil rights record? We were attacked because, rightly or wrongly, the U.S. is percieved by some as a supporter of opression. Ho Chi Min was once proclaimed "The George Washington of Asia". Till our foreign relations priorities change STARTING WITH ACKNOWELEDGEMENT OF PAST MISTAKES, things can not improve by much for very long. Just how scarce are those resources we sacrifice national principles for? Read "Politics in the Age of Scarcity." We know more about the surface of the moon than the Pacific Sea bed. The moon spun off from there, and is laden with heavy elemants. Deep submerssibles have reported FOUNTAINS of molten titanium and gold in the Marianas Trench. The only ones doing signifigant research there now are the South Koreans. If American oil companies just pass on increased costs, why do they post record profits during "shortages"? The Dynacam engine developed during WWII was bought by Rockeffeller and never produced. J.P Getty did the same with an even more promising design in the 70's. There is a lot more going on than meets the eye.Best Regards, Donny:-wave

[Guest Divergent Phugoid]

>>I don't necassarily buy the theory that third world countries have to >>advance AT THE COST of advanced ones.Yes, 100% Something many people aren't informed about. If we disable our economies then the third world is buggered. Likewise, if the third world develops we all have more trading partners and ergo more stable and stronger economies. This is why the Green Party are just a bunch of loonies. There is no sophistication to their approach.HOWEVER, there is no doubt in my mind that we are changing the environment. We must be. The other problem is that a changing environment over a long period of time probably creates more opportunities than problems, but the environement is apparently changing very quickly.Whether resources are scant or not, oil burning is crude and naff and it is about time we got interested in powering stuff in a different way. Do not fear change, it is really your friend!At the end of the day, the US needs to control the world's resources as it is the biggest consumer. The rub is that the US is one of the most inefficient countries and will not have to try very hard to to cut back. They should do what the UK gov did and increase fuel tax a little each year. We now have a buffer where we can abord fluctuation in oil without a deliterious effect on our business. It is also a little known fact that the UK is capable of being entirely self suffienct interms of energy needs so we are in a strong position long term. However, friction between China (soon to be one of the world biggest economies) and the US may cause a little angst here and there. US guys, you gotta start buying smaller cars...seriously!Now for a bit of subjectivity. I keep hearing how the weather has noticably changed. Frankly, in the UK, it is no different now than it was 30 years ago. Not one iota. In fact, the exteme weather has passed if anything: Winter '47 and '63, Summer '76 and the Storms of '89 being the most exteme on record.

[Guest Shalomar]

Donny AKA ShalomarFly 2 ROCKS!!!Typo: The North Koreans are the ones doing research in the Pacific area. There aproach is to scoop up cooled clumps from the undersea molten elements "fountains".To SOME degree, greener is better and in the long term financial interest of corporations. For example, modern cars are designed with fewer different types of plastics in the interior to make it easier for recycling when they are eventually junked. Chrysler saved money by going to reusable shipping containers instead of cardboard boxes.I do not agree with direct taxes on fuel to reduce emissions. The stifling effect on the economy will make it harder to go "greener". More novel aproaches like including a trip computer and electronic speed control in vehicles as part of the required emmissions package. If people have direct evidence in front of them of the incresaed cost of 85 MPH versus 65, they might just slow down sometimes. Also the "resume" function of modern cruise controls doesn't just "put the pedal to the metal" like earlier ones.There is a difference between "changing the environment" and "accelerating global warming." We are definitely doing the former in ways undesirable.Anecdotal evidence of weather change is stronger in most people's minds than hard scientific data. For now it's colder than I want it to be around Philly in the spring. I am not jumping to the conclusion that is the result of the coming ice age, but some people might. People are much less inclined to notice a gradual 10 degree lowering of average temp for months than a sudden "spike" like just happened in my area. I did get one trip to the beach in a few weeks ago when the average was 70. A few years ago it was 72 at the shore in December. That was a treat, soon as I heard the forecast I started getting my beach gear together.Best Regards, Donny:-wave

[Guest Divergent Phugoid]

>>I do not agree with direct taxes on fuel to reduce emissions. The >>stifling effect on the economy will make it harder to go "greener".Well I don't know. The UK is in the envy of Europe. If the Oil rises inexorably, then the tax can be reduced. Also, because the tax is in place companies and individuals invest in fuel saving methods that make them better off than they would have been anyway. What better method can there be? It works.>>f people have direct evidence in front of them of the incresaed cost of >>85 MPH versus 65, they might just slow down sometimes.Not if it does hurt them.>>There is a difference between "changing the environment" and >>"accelerating global warming." We are definitely doing the former in >>ways undesirable.Agreed. Regardless, the loss of oil as a fuel will be better for us all in the long run, it is sudden change that can cause problems. For this reason we must take our heads out of the sand now and plan the next 150 years.An excellent debate Gentlemen.

[delta november 0]

Just thought you all might be interested in this news clipping;xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxCleaner, but Worse?Two studies released last week show that air quality is improving worldwide. Science magazine reports that a dramatic drop in fossil fuel emissions over the former Soviet Union has contributed to cleaner air over that region. But experts were also surprised to find cleaner air over China (search), which is burning more fossil fuels than ever. One scientist speculated that China may be using previously unknown clean-air technology.Either way, global warming researchers insist that cleaner air is bad news. They say that additional sunlight reaching the ground will warm the earth's surface and destabilize the climate, adding to the problems of global warming.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Don't you just love it!:-lol Also less than 2 wks ago I read a piece on Yahoo news that claimeda new study of the Indian Ocean area had concluded that soot fromcooking fires in these third world countries was causing as much as athird of the observed temp increases.:-roll It just tickles the crud out of me that you can't get an ACCURATE72 hour forecast but they are willing to yell the sky is fallingabout all this global warming. In the 1970's they were yelling we were entering an Ice age :+ DennyProfessional Tourist

[Guest]

yup, the global warming idiots will never be satisfied until we're all living in caves and wearing animal skins.And then they'll probably claim we should move out of the caves because they belong to the animals and should stop killing those animals for their skins...

[Guest Shalomar]

Donny AKA ShalomarFly 2 ROCKS!!!The oil companies in the US do a pretty good job of charging what the market will bear. If taxes are imposed to curb emissions, but relief is granted during price spikes, you can bet there will almost always be spikes. Why would the oil companies let the government get money that could go to them? But what would be done with the money? Current technologies are just too immature to be pushed. Has anyone taken a serious look at the hybrid-electrics? First off, the money saved in gas must be offset by the cost to replace the battery. I heard that it was thousands, even if that price falls it will still cost more than a conventional vehicle's battery. Batteries lose capacity over their life, thus the reduced emissions must be "graded on a curve" cuz as the battery gets older the engine will run more often. Don't most use lead acid banks? Even sealed ones lose fluid over time. What exactly escapes, if it's sulphuric acid do we really want a lot bigger batteries on the planet? And how much is emitted during manufacture and eventual recycling of the battery? To make it a fair comparison, all these things must be factored in.A lot of issues are interconnected, but my original main point was global warming as a natural cycle. The event msot scientists regard as crossing the rubicon is when the Gulf Stream shuts down as the result of a warmer atlantic and decreased salinity from melting of the arctic icecap. This effect will lead to imediate regional cooling when it occurs. There seem to be four main points of contention:Man is speeding up the processMan is in a position to slow it downMan can slow down global warming enough to make the effects on economies by rushing to curb emisions worthwhileThe advantage of not being hobbled by emissions taxes is so small that there will be no decrease in preparedness for the effects of the more severe winters to be expected in North America, europe and weakening of the monsoon season, myriad other effects affecting many other regions which hard data proves have occured during other cycles.It was just a fluke, but I was in Philly when there was a layer of ice an inch thick and the temp stayed so low for a week salt was not effective. There were power outages/shortages due to wires being brought down by ice and water shortages brought by strain on the distribution system due to water main breaks. For most people, their heat does not work during an outage because of ancillary systems like blowers and electronic ignition, so just not having electric heat isn't good enough. Expand those conditions to just the entire Northeast U.S. and make it last just one month. It would not be good. It will take time and money to be ready for winters like that, money that can only come from strong economies.Best Regards, Donny:-wave

[Guest Divergent Phugoid]

>>Why would the oil companies let the government get money that could go >>to them?Simple, if an oil company charges more they loose business. If a tax is added all companies have to charge more. The fact is that the public moan and whinge for a while, then they decide that it still beats walking and stump up. The great public is always gives in to firm hand from government in the end...especially when disposable income is so high.I agree, that to some degree GW is a natural phenomenon. But to a large degree we are polluting. To a larger degree the case is being wildly exagerated by the 'experts'. Regardless of all this: We do pollute. We do pollute too much. We can reduce it and we can reduce it now with simple measures! I hate waste and we are wasteful and squandering enegry, I am convinced.