A Conversation for Greenhouse Effect
26199 Started conversation Apr 3, 2000
Hmmm... I've never really taken all that much interest in global warming, largely because I assume it ain't going to happen to me...
Now I come to think of it, though, it's not as if I live at the top of a mountain. Does anybody know how the UK's supposed to fare, should the worst happen?
I know this is an extremely self-centred attitute to take about the whole thing, but... well, it's only natural, isn't it? What people really want to know is if their house is going to be under five metres of water in the next twenty years...
Occasional Hieroglyphic, wanderer in search of the exoteric Posted Apr 3, 2000
As I was born (and still live) on an island, most water tends to run off the edge. However my parents were from London and whenever they were thinking of moving house they (well my mother, of course) would insist on any new house being at least half way up a hill.
Not so silly, nowadays, I suspect.
Alaska Posted Apr 3, 2000
I would not worry about global warning. The environmental groups and liberal news media has done an effective job of scaring the public. Since that's what sells newspapers, they have an interest in doing so. Besides, I think it makes news reporters feel good to act so "concerned" and "sensitive".
Consider these two points beneath:
1) Add up all the man-made pollution in the 20th century. Yes, all the pollution from cars, factories, boats, etc. If you add all of it up, it only amounts to 3% of the harmful gases that were in the Mount Pinatubo (sp?) eruption in the Phillipines. And there have been thousands of eruptions of volcanos in this millineum. Man does not make a significant impact... we are a rounding error.
2) There is three times as much forest in North America than there was when Chirstopher Columbus landed - thanks to fire fighting techniques and whatnot...
Seven Crocodile Rain Posted Apr 3, 2000
Three times as much forest!? Those are shocking statistics. You know 37% of all statistics are made up on the spot. Are yours true?
Alaska Posted Apr 4, 2000
Haahaa... yes. I assure you they are true. The forest one comes from the National Forestry Department.
Seven Crocodile Rain Posted Apr 4, 2000
well they say that 50% of poeple are amazed by statistics...
26199 Posted Apr 5, 2000
Blatherskite the Mugwump - Bandwidth Bandit Posted May 7, 2000
Yes, the alarmists love the Greenhouse Effect. Al Gore loves it as a way to get votes. Greenpeace loves it because it attracts donations, which they spend fueling fishing boats to go out and harass Japanese whalers... producing a few greenhouse gasses along the way. People from the Midwest love it, too... they stand outside their front porches emptying cans of deodorant, trying to do their part to end sub-zero winters. A couple of facts:
25 years ago, there was another scare... global *cooling* was the problem, and people were saying stuff like: "the threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind." - Nigel Calder, International Wildlife Magazine, July '75.
Here's some statistics made up by some reliable people:
1992 Gallup Poll of 400 meteorologists and geophysicists found that 60% thought global temperatures had risen over the last century, but only 19% blamed man.
Greenpeace surveyed their own chosen scientists, and the number who thought Greenhouse could be runaway was only 13%.
And some statistics made by someone less reliable:
"Scientists concluded - almost unanimously - that global warming is real and the time to act is now." - Al Gore
"The theory of global warming will not be disproved" - Al again, our own environmental Dan Quayle
Quotes and statistics lifted from "All the Trouble in the World" by PJ O'Rourke, because I can't be bothered to put in so much research for what H2G2 is paying.
26199 Posted May 7, 2000
Still. Avoiding pumping out lotsa greenhouse gases can hardly be a bad thing, hmmmm?
Commies from outer-space Posted Jun 15, 2000
Now this is crazy.
Forest are no where.
I used to live with an apache medician man in the mountians of northern new mexico and we were driving to a nerby town to build an 'Horno' oven. Well, I was looking at all the expanse and thought how that expanse wasn't in are emmidiat area of residence. I asked him then what was the land like before the white man came and his anser was that all that expase was filled with forest.
I'm a truck driver. Everywhere in the southwest united states there are no trees. Or very young pines planted within the last 5 years. Its terrible.Park your car next to some trees. Then walk into the trees and a 100 yards later, they are all cut down.
And as far as greenhouse effect, haven't you been keepin up on what the so-called officials are saying now, or better yet, do you feel how hot it is?
Blatherskite the Mugwump - Bandwidth Bandit Posted Jun 15, 2000
Most likely, your Apache medicine man was talking about land the government owned, since the government has been the single biggest environmental threat in this country. In spite of them, however:
"Measurements from Austria, FInland, France, Germany, Sweden, and Switzerland show a general increase in forests." - Science Magazine, April 1992
"50 million acres of forest have sprung up in the Eastern US since 1920." - US Department of Agriculture
And in the BBC this week, an article on the dangers of global warming came out, full of the sensational sort of rhetoric that sells newspapers. However, when one reads between the lines, these facts become interesting"
"The report says the average annual US temperature rose by 0.6 degrees C over the last century" - Can anyone here feel the difference? Do you remember the cooler days of 1900?
And wayyyy down on the bottom of the article, where most people would have stopped reading:
"Some researchers doubt that human activities are inducing rapid climate change. They highlight the inconsistencies between the temperature records taken at the Earth's surface, which show rapid warming over the last two decades, and the data produced by satellite and balloon studies. These show little or no warming higher in the atmosphere over the same period, and some scientists say our understanding of climate processes is still too limited to support an acceptance of human-induced climate change."
According to Greenpeace, "some researchers" make up 87% of the meteorological community.
Do I feel how hot it is? Of course. I live in the Southwest, too, and in a desert. It's supposed to be hot. I think a lot of people forget during the winter what it's going to be like again in summer. It sure doesn't seem any different to me.
Commies from outer-space Posted Jun 15, 2000
Listen, I agree with you on many things. I hate all those polititions. They lie, cheat, ateal, plunder and murder.
Anything they say should be taken with a grain of salt. But, if it is true that their is more forest in the eastern world then thats great news.
I do know that 78 million acres of rainforest are destroyed each year. 50,000 species of life become extint as a result each year. I do know man affects the invirnment in replacable manners. There are less then 4000 tigers left in the world. All the frogs that used to florish here in Southeast arizona are now extinct. I used to listen to them all night during the rains. Last years rains their were no frogs singing.
Its not hard to believe then that man can or will destroy the earth, or is doing that now.
But you might be right. I just think its funny that weather forcasters had switched to reading the temptures in the shade rather then in the sun. Kinda like.... lying to us.
Blatherskite the Mugwump - Bandwidth Bandit Posted Jun 16, 2000
I agree that man has too much of a detrimental impact on the earth and the environment, and that we should take steps to correct that. For example, here in the US, the government owns 30% of all land, and that land has been leased out to strip-miners and pollution dumpers. That is the problem... the government owns the land, so the leasee has no particular investment in it, so can destroy it at whim. Sell that land to the mining company or pollutant, and they'll take steps to ensure it maintains its retail value. Then you get poorly devised government plans like the budgeting for the Forestry Service, and things get worse. The Forestry Service maintains all the national parks, but all the revenues from the national parks goes to the treasury. So in order to stay in business, the service has to turn to revenues from loggers, which their charter says they are allowed to keep. Loggers have no interest in the land, again, so if they strip the place bare, they can go find another forest to denude, and the Forestry Service can use the revenues to keep Yellowstone open a little longer.
The wholesale destruction of the rainforests is yet another example of government gone bad. It is the national policy in Brazil and such to clear that land for things like farming, new businesses, etc., and of course, they're making money off the trees they clear, as well. So when someone comes up with a contract to develop jungles in the middle of nowhere, the government approves them.
Anyway, my goal here is to show that, despite the alarmists, things really aren't all that bad. I read a stat somewhere that the total of greenhouse gasses released by industrial nations since 1900 comes to about 10% of the greenhouse gasses released by the Mt. Pinatubo eruption... and there have been many other major volcanic eruptions this century besides that one. Some greenhouse effect is absolutely vital to life, because that's how the earth keeps from freezing over every night. It's yet another one of those things in nature that is a delicate balance, but I think people should know that we're having a very small effect on it. Anything that we can do to minimize that effect even further, though, is still A Good Thing. And we're cutting down trees in the jungles, but they're growing in the industrialized nations, thanks to growing concern over the environment and advanced fire-fighting techniques (trees are now less likely to die of natural causes). We still have a lot of progress to make, but don't go crawling into your bomb shelter just yet.
Commies from outer-space Posted Jun 16, 2000
I'd like to think that the earth's balance has a way of ridding any pestalense. I'm not saying that the earth is taking that that stand now. Maybe what your saying is that man is too small to effect the global climate. But then maybe your not. But survival of the fittest is nature's way. And you would think that the earth could take such a stand. If the earth thought (lets just say) I'm sure organic life is on the least of its concerns. But you would think the earth is capable of ridding a danger to its self.
Thats my point. You would think the earth could terminate something within itself if nature deemed it nessary. Are we there now? Maybe, maybe not. I know its hotter then normal here. Thats not saying much. Like you said, tempts. rise and fall through out time. We could be just at the start of something that well probably hurt and great grand kids.
I don't think its that far ahead. But you and me aren't arguing that. Actually we agree that steps now more then ever need to be taken to ensure the survival of the earth, not because of global warming, and not for a tax cut ethier. But becuase its the right thing to do.
Your all right. I wouldn't put it past a bunch of so-called left wing wackos to raise a big fuss over something just for the popular vote. But every step they take (I don't keep up on it) Is something, if they actually follow through. But if history tells lessons, I wouldn't trust any of them with the envirnment. Unfortunatly, everyone else does.
You know, its amazing what these people consider 'giving back to the envirnment'. They will cut down a forest full of trees that haved lived hundreds of years, but they will replant trees that last maybe 60 years.
Anyways, I'm getting kicked off, take care.
Occasional Hieroglyphic, wanderer in search of the exoteric Posted Jun 18, 2000
We can indeed plant all the new forest we like. In just a few years we can re-forest a huge area which will look lovely and help the environment. The trouble is that any tree planted has to be "useful" and have a "value" or "what's the point of planting that?". So we end up with 100's of square miles of one tree. Is it any wonder that frogs, lizards, insects, birds, animals, etc. are all missing from this wonderful new forest? We are not capable of building a balanced ecology from scratch. It takes nature 100's or even 1,000's of years to do it. We cannot replace rainforest. It is impossible because mankind has not the lifespan and therefore the patience to be interested and realise that every little thing has to be included, even the nettles and stinging ants and poisonous berries etc.
jrepka Posted Jul 13, 2000
"I read a stat somewhere that the total of greenhouse gasses released by industrial nations since 1900 comes to about 10% of the greenhouse gasses released by the Mt. Pinatubo eruption... "
This is patently untrue. I've heard this alleged before, and so I've looked it up in volcanic research journals. The annual anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 during the 80's was 5.5 +/- 0.5 Gt (Gt=gigatonne=1billion tonnes) (source: IPCC 1994). This is due to all burning of fossil fuels worldwide. This is offset to a small degree by the ocean: as atmospheric CO2 increases, the ocean absorbs some of that to stay in equilibrium (the dominant form of CO2 in ocean water is bicarbonate, or HCO3-). Annual uptake by the ocean during the 80's was about 2.0 +/- 0.8 GT (IPCC 1994), so the net increase in the atmosphere was about 3.2 - 3.3 Gt.
Mt. Pinatubo was no slouch in CO2 emissions: At its peak it was emitting ~100,000 tonnes of CO2/day into the atmosphere. Of course, this peak lasted for only a few days, and it is FOUR orders of magnitude less than the anthropogenic input (like adding a tablespoon of water to a bathtub). There are a couple of dozen volcanic eruptions per year worldwide, most of which are much smaller than Pinatubo and emit only a few thousand tonnes of CO2 per day for a few days. A few 1000 Mw coal-fired power plants match the average annual CO2 output of ALL volcanic eruptions.
"Loggers have no interest in the land, again, so if they strip the place bare, they can go find another forest to denude, and the Forestry Service can use the revenues to keep Yellowstone open a little longer."
First, the Forest Service doesn't administer Nat'l Parks, the Park Service does. The Forest Service administers the Nat'l Forests. The Forest Service LOSES money on timber sales, cuz the rules require them to sell timber at the lowest possible prices and to PAY the Lumber companies for building dirt roads into the forests (instead of CHARGING them for the environmental damage those roads create). To reiterate: Timber sales from National Forests COST the government money, in addition to the environmental damage they cause.
Secondly, in Northern California and in Oregon Timber companies DO own millions of acres of land, and the environmental damage they cause on their own property is well documented (not to mention the damage to adjacent properties due to mass wasting, additional sediment load in streams, etc...). It's called short-sightedness, and it happens because stock prices rise and fall in response to THIS quarter's profit reports, not to long-term potential.
Don't fall into the libertarian mindset that owners of the land will automatically care more. A human being generally has ethics, a corporation does not. In most cases a human, given the choice between saving another human's life or picking up a $100 dollar bill, will choose the life; a corporation will ALWAYS take the money, because the humans in charge are isolated from responsibility for their decisions.
Commies from outer-space Posted Oct 27, 2000
Correct. Maybe you heard this. In the back of some news paper I read an article about releasing several tons of algie
into the ocean so that it will obserb the carbon dioxides in the air. Their was some reaction by envirnmentalist regarding wether or
not this will actually do any good; or maybe it could do bad by not understanding the impact it would have in the
ocean. Does it release the carbon after it dyies?
That and just resently they discovered the ozone hole in the southern hemishere is so depleted, all you have to do is be in the sun for more then 7 minutes and you will be burned by the sun. Keep in mind the earth is closer to the sun during are winter / thier summer. Summer toppeled with being close to the sun. WOW!
The only change mankind will be successful at is a change at it social order; a change that demands the recognition of the knoledge that this planet is volnurable and needs repairing. That without out it we're dead. That human life, if it is to continue, will need to adopt to a whole new way of life that allows us are knoledge as tenders, if not guest.
There will never be any change unless it is total and at its day to day social base. Or maybe earth is a dime a dozen?
I know we don't believe that. But these powers that be don't seem to be that worried. If they have there own solution, you can count on us not being included.
Blatherskite the Mugwump - Bandwidth Bandit Posted Oct 27, 2000
A human might save a life, but a government will not. Our government is made up of lawyers, not humans.
The government leases to corporations. Those corporations exploit the land. Now, if a government sold the land to a corporation, do you think they will exploit it so much? After all, what the hell can they get from it after it's strip-mined? Nothing. It can't be sold, it can't be developed, it can't be anything other than a wasteland. Corporations are not in the habit of consuming every useful resource and then moving on, like a swarm of locusts, because they know that soon enough there won't be any new places to swarm. Look at sustainable logging... that is a practice developed by logging corporations for entirely commercial purposes. It also happens to save the environment.
As for the volcano statistics, there are three kinds of lies... lies, damned lies, and statistics. I've shown you my source, would you care to show me yours?
And yes, the government loses money on logging contracts, but the Forestry Service makes money. All the other overhead things that go into it come out of the national treasury, but all revenues generated by logging go straight to the Forestry Service. So the Forestry Service gets to stay in business, and anyone who knows anything about government knows that job preservation is its highest priority.
And on ozone depletion, here are a few quotes from the Washington Post, April 15, 1993:
"While there is evidence that the ozone damage is happening, it has proven impossible so far to detect any resulting increase in [UV light] reaching the ground."
"The amount of increase that the theory says we could be getting from ozone depletion is smaller than the error of our best measuring instruments."
"People get all excited about a few-percent change in UV, but it's nothing to get a 20 percent increase naturally. If an increase of 20 percent were going to be so damaging, there should be no life in Florida."
Commies from outer-space Posted Oct 29, 2000
People are getting sun burned in the southern hemisphere for just being outside longer then 10 minutes. There is at least 50% of ice gone from the northern ice cap (which big business is hoping to capatalize on when they have a shorter route for shipping to the other side of the world). I do some charity work for the homless out here. For several days out of each fall and winter season, I camp out with them in thier little tent city. Last year this time, I was freezing my ass off. The year before that was even colder. Now we are going into november and we're as warm as ever.
Sure it will get cold soon....but when?
Key: Complain about this post
- 1: 26199 (Apr 3, 2000)
- 2: Occasional Hieroglyphic, wanderer in search of the exoteric (Apr 3, 2000)
- 3: Alaska (Apr 3, 2000)
- 4: Seven Crocodile Rain (Apr 3, 2000)
- 5: Alaska (Apr 4, 2000)
- 6: Seven Crocodile Rain (Apr 4, 2000)
- 7: 26199 (Apr 5, 2000)
- 8: Seven Crocodile Rain (Apr 5, 2000)
- 9: Blatherskite the Mugwump - Bandwidth Bandit (May 7, 2000)
- 10: 26199 (May 7, 2000)
- 11: Commies from outer-space (Jun 15, 2000)
- 12: Blatherskite the Mugwump - Bandwidth Bandit (Jun 15, 2000)
- 13: Commies from outer-space (Jun 15, 2000)
- 14: Blatherskite the Mugwump - Bandwidth Bandit (Jun 16, 2000)
- 15: Commies from outer-space (Jun 16, 2000)
- 16: Occasional Hieroglyphic, wanderer in search of the exoteric (Jun 18, 2000)
- 17: jrepka (Jul 13, 2000)
- 18: Commies from outer-space (Oct 27, 2000)
- 19: Blatherskite the Mugwump - Bandwidth Bandit (Oct 27, 2000)
- 20: Commies from outer-space (Oct 29, 2000)