Iraq, G. dub, and the long arm of the Army Reserve

According to this book Ch 3 we should be approaching another ice age, but because of man's influence over the last 100 yrs, we have almost reversed the cycle.

http://www.yeomansplow.com.au/priority-one-contents.htm

This book doesn't promote green types or the "Global Warming anarchists" but it does approach it with some interesting facts that based over time has contributed to what we are now experiencing..

There are so many factors involved in the overall scheme of things that a lot get missed and those that have agendas, only focus on what it is they are promoting (Greens vs Big Oil), but if you take into consideration everything you will come away with a better perspective of the whole picture...I would say man is definately responsible for speeding up the process of warming.

One thing that pisses me off... is when people use the term Green House effect they leave out the fact the even with all the gas we pump out it is a tiny percentage of green house gas. They leave out the largest... water. yes water vapor.

But cleaning the air is in all our best interest. I think I posted here before... but I was in London in September and I am AMAZED at the job they have done in the UK to lower pollution. You might not notice living there but I did. The last time I was in London was in 1994 and man... GOOD JOB.

Do we give Blair credit? ;)

No blair payes cash!
Seriously Road while it is true the gas we pump out is a small % of the green house gases one thing that needs to be taken into account is that they are a recent addition to the eco system. The argument is an old one and is used mainly by big buissness and goverments to justifiy their position. The counter argument is that pumping millions of extra tons of gas in to the atmosphere every year is enought to change the balance of the eco system.

Quote:

---

they are a recent addition to the eco system

---

No argument there. But at the same time there have been higher concentraiton of them before. And they followed temperature increases. Indicating that something else besides C02 causes the cycles. It's all fascinating. I read one study that suggests plants actually do better at higher C02 levels. What I am scared of is us ****ing with the atmosphere and really doing damage. The earth has been here for billions of years through all kinds of cycles. Did you know that commercial greenhouses pump up like 300 percent of normal earth C02 levels?

I think what a lot of people don't know is that all these rain forests or just plain forests, suck in Co2 and give off O2.

Quote:

---

It is estimated that Algae produces about 73 to 87 percent of the net global production of oxygen,which makes it available to humans and other terrestrial animals for respiration.[11] Another secondary source of oxygen are trees, trees can absorb carbon dioxide at the rate of 26 pounds per year-especially young trees that are still growing-while releasing oxygen back into the air.

---

So if we keep polluting the oceans and kill off the algae and keep cutting the trees down until there are none left (because we are not doing enough to re-plant) what does that leave us in regards to making O2...oh right we will have to make it through industrial means, which means we will need to burn oil/coal to run the plant which in turn will produce the Oxygen needed to keep us breathing.....oh the irony....:rolleyes:

dalek, plant a tree today.

My local community has a tree program. People who want to plant a tree on the street can get 2 for free. Not only does that help with c02 and 02 in c02 (Oxygen), it helps reduce heat retention in the earth and thus temperature.

Because if we wait for someone else to do it, it's not going to happen. Those people clear land for food. Our own cultures of quilty of it. Most of the USA and England and Europe has been deforested since the 13th century.

Maybe that is the REAL cause? Think about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RoadClosed

dalek, plant a tree today.

My local community has a tree program. People who want to plant a tree on the street can get 2 for free. Not only does that help with c02 and 02 in c02 (Oxygen), it helps reduce heat retention in the earth and thus temperature.

Because if we wait for someone else to do it, it's not going to happen. Those people clear land for food. Our own cultures of quilty of it. Most of the USA and England and Europe has been deforested since the 13th century.

Maybe that is the REAL cause? Think about it.

---

It also helps in replenishing water tables, and I do think about it a lot, everytime I see the sattelite images of the rain forests and their clear cutting, as well as our own (British Columbia)and your right Western countries are the biggest abusers of these fragile eco systems down to the point of draining what they feel is swampland (Florida delta river system).

Oh and I do plant a tree but some bastard keeps cutting it down for Christmas...:D:halo:

Actually the land being cleared in the Amazon is not just for food, but it's for mining (gold) and for the timber as well....big corporations still have a hand in it somewhere.....:rolleyes:

Check out global dimming sometime (google it). Depending on your
location, 10-30% less light is reaching the Earth's surface than 40
years ago.

Particulate pollution is actually shielding the planet from more warming than we're suffering.

In Gore's 8 year doomsday prediction he portrays the earth as recieving more light or energy from the sun because the ice sheets are melting. Sheets that act as huge mirrors to reflect solar energy. Bottom line - I think, we don't know jack **** and if we make ANY rapid change it's going to be like releasing a mongoose on a tropical island. We gonna be fuxed massa.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RoadClosed

In Gore's 8 year doomsday prediction he portrays the earth as recieving more light or energy from the sun because the ice sheets are melting. Sheets that act as huge mirrors to reflect solar energy. Bottom line - I think, we don't know jack **** and if we make ANY rapid change it's going to be like releasing a mongoose on a tropical island. We gonna be fuxed massa.

---

Wait...that seems like the right conclusion but by incorrect science.

If they ice caps melt, there would be more water vapor in the atmosphere, hence trapping more heat. The fact that they reflect sunlight would be irrelavant since they are within Earth's atmosphere.

A good example of this would be when I was in Alaska awhile back ice climbing. We were playing baseball on a glacier while it was raining. However, the glacier was so big that it reflected enough sunlight back into the sky to keep rain clouds from forming. So...it was raining everywhere except for where we were playing--quite sunny actually. Pretty cool, huh?

Hmmm, if the icecaps melt they will cool the oceans resulting in less CO2. Remember, carbon dioxide is more soluble in cold water.

:)

Well said! I thank you.

Quote:

---

Remember, carbon dioxide is more soluble in cold water.

---

Definitely. Any brewer knows this. ;)

I force carbonate at near freezing.

Quote:

---

Wait...that seems like the right conclusion but by incorrect science.

---

That's why not everyone is part of the Gore Parade. It does make sense however that large relective ice sheets would allow less engery to the planet surface where energy is stored perhaps more efficiently in a rock than water vapor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nihil

Hmmm, if the icecaps melt they will cool the oceans resulting in less CO2. Remember, carbon dioxide is more soluble in cold water.

:)

---

Well the Danes and anybody else who lives below sea level now will be happy about that fact, hmmm what's the housing market like right now in say...Norway...:D I'm allright Jack, I live on a hill....:drink:

Actually dalek, that is another interesting one, you see if you warm water it expands and if you cool water it contracts (until it becomes ice, when it expands again, in this case as icecaps)............so, global warming causes the oceans to rise due to expansion, whereas oceanic cooling would cause them to fall due to contraction, but there would be more water until the icecaps reformed?

Folks, I studied climatology and meteorology at high school and university and then some afterwards. I lay no claim to be at the cutting edge these days, but I do understand the problems.............

What we have here is the mother and father of a multivariate predictive analytical model, and we don't know enough about all the variables or their "sensitivity analysis values" (math modellers will know what I mean by that) to have any real hope of getting this anywhere near right.

Hell folks, we have hardly any empirical data to feed into the model.........we have collected sporadic data from maybe 1850, and probably more comprehensive data from no earlier than 1948? Satellite met was in its infancy when I was studying in 1970:eek:

The problem we are looking at is on a quaternary or paleontological timescale. Like we have less than one second's worth of data in the average human lifetime?

;)

Not too make light of the complexities of weather forecasting, but the US's NOAA can't get the weather correct for 2 days from now 75% of the time (my figure). Why should I trust shallow empirical data and a forecast for the next 100- 500 years?

I live about 500 feet above the Connecticut River, which would have to raise considerably to get to me personally, granted the residual effects of others would affect me. After this years winter, global warming might seem welcome. I burned a lot of fossil fuel keeping my house warm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nihil

What we have here is the mother and father of a multivariate predictive analytical model, and we don't know enough about all the variables or their "sensitivity analysis values" (math modellers will know what I mean by that) to have any real hope of getting this anywhere near right.

---

The thing with this, is over a period of say 70 yrs, it was easier to map out a particular weather pattern, you could swear by the Almanac, but today the systems are more random then ever so the game rules have changed and we are unable to map it out like we used to, too many variables have come into play, too many peripheral cuasalities are affecting the scales to get a true reading on what to forcast.

Case in point is Katrina, what started out as Cat 1 Hurricane coming through Florida quickly became a Cat 4 over the Gulf and then swept into New Orleans, the reason is the temp's of the Gulf were warmer then before and this wasn't really the normal trajectory of Hurricanes, but when combined it created the mother of all hurricanes for that season...

Our winter's have been milder over the last 20yrs, but then we had a snowstorm last night and here it is Apr 8 2007, all along the Eastern Seaboard the temps were low, so it is up for grabs, there is no "normalcy" any more, years ago you could rely on the lakes freezing just in time to go skating and you knew there would be a period of time that the lake would stay frozen...no longer can you rely on "dates"......:(

It is not surprising that a thread about Geo W. Bush evolves into a discussion of
global warming. It only indicates that global warming is totally about politics and
has absolutely nothing about science. If you were to approach the question scientifically
you would have an experiment. Take two identical planets like the Earth. On one, you
allow the development of energy resources in much the same way we have done so far.
On the other, you employ the restrictions desired by the global warming alarmists.

Observe them for five or six thousand years and track the temperatures. It's easy
to see that the radical green movement has no patience to wait for good data to
come in. They will tell you straight up that all problems on this planet have one
originating cause 'There are too many humans on this planet' They want
to be put into power by an emergency decree. Then, with absolute power, they
can make the "hard choices" that the rest of us have no stomach for, to decree
genocide in order to save the planet. Welcome to the "post sanity" era, and have a
nice century, if you are one of the chosen few.
:cool:

Unfortunatly Rc we dont have two spare planets to try that on. Also they have been tracking the temperatures over the past couple of thousand years using ice cores and rock cores. As far as we can tell there has never been such a change in the global weather patterens in such a short time. There is more than enought scientific evidance to prove we are haveing a serious effect on the enviroment and not just throught emmisions. Europe and the Us are having huge problems of erosion due to over farming. The sahara desert in north africa is the best example of over grazing at the moment. Of course if you are right we have nothing to fear and if you are wrong there wont be any need to admit it :).

Quote:

---

Europe and the Us are having huge problems of erosion due to over farming.

---

I was talking to a historian in the pub over in Bristol last fall. He told me that before the UK started building the huge Navy, in essence deforesting most of England and Wales, the rivers used to run clean. That was like 400 years ago. The bastards! ;)