of course...the Earths temp has NEVER been or will EVER be a "Constant", who ever came up with that silly idea...?
a globe, internally heated ( lava),with 'vents'( volcanoes) whirling around Universe at a high rate of speed, and going around a very hot globe (the sun) ,which has out bursts of heat in all directions at different times...some at known cycles of +_ 40 yrs, is to have a constant avg temperature?
I've no doubt the Earth goes through puberty every million years or so but there is no denying the excessive carbon dioxide emissions produced by the modern industrial age have had their effect on warming. Just how much effect is truly the only debatable issue.
Say hello to my leetle friend..Presenting the "FIRETOAD"
Whatever the cause of this Global Warming, the amazing fact that we are living in a time that is unique in the last 7000 years is a priviledge. It's a great oportunity for discovery. What else is under that ice? And what else is going to happen when the Earth rises up without the weight of the ice on it? The Great Lakes are being lifted up like glasses in a toast. Spilling thier contents in the process. Cheers!
Maybe one of those 'SUVs' will be uncovered when the ice recedes? Seriously, the SUV question begs an answer to why it was so hot before and why it got colder. Was the equivalent of our SUVs a gaseous dinosaur? And who stole the gas from those ancient SUVs?
I was being scarcastic with a "a couple weeks of global warming". I followed a bunch of links attached to that article and everything is blamed on GW (global warming). It makes me crazy.
I realize since the "rise of machines" that CO2 is being added to the atmosphere unnaturally. But to say on a global level this causes warming, I don't think so. Does temerature track CO2 levels or vice versa? they still can't say.
For purposes of scale. If we look at weather patterns since say 65,000,000 million years ago and then 200 years of human recorded data. I use 65 mill years because that's when the dinos died (K-T extinction event) and the earth entered it's "modern age"..oceans were pretty much like they are now. Oceans have the largest impact on weather patterns.
Anyway 200 years in 65 mill on a scale is equivalent of .011" on a 100 yard football field. (three average brunette human hairs (.004" diameter) laying side by side)
The eco-nuts have their head so far up their arse they can't see anything. For example-Ethanol in Brazil from sugar cane. Great, wonderful, reduce emmissions. How do you grow that much sugar cane? Answer--Burn down the rain forests for cropland. Another fine example. Wind turbines out west and in Western MD. They are being held back due to the potential of birds flying into them.
I believe that the oceans have changed dramatically over the past 7000 years too. Just from what I can observe myself I see it. You can walk the beachs of Michigan and find fossilized teeth from sharks. Not your usual little black sharks teeth. These teeth we find are as big as your thumb. Teeth from massive sharks that swam in the large sea that was here before the lakes. I live about a mile from the lake shore. My house is built next to the oldest shoreline road in the state. If I dig down ten feet I hit a solid layer of sea shells. Where my house now sits was once the shore of an ocean. With only ten feet of sand on top of the shells, it couldn't have been billions of years ago..... Or could it?
Just think of all the methane and CO2 those big dinosaurs produced! And I sincerely doubt that they had proper emissions controls on every volcano! I'm sure glad the econuts at that time were able to take control and get a nice big ice age back!
The fact that trees were growing before the ice came confirms again that weather is cyclical and that no one truly knows what is driving the weather patterns.
Inconveniently, "Inconvenient Truth" has been banned in Britain because of shoddy or blatantly wrong "scientific" reasoning or evidence!
Good point. Maybe 'Global Warming' is really 'Global Healing'. After all these years our Earth is returning to it's true form..... Maybe the ice caps were like big scabs which are retreating to reveal the new flesh of the Earth?
But will the political "scabs" disappear as well? How much is all this saber rattling doing to our respective economies? How much damage is being done to the old car culture - again - in the name of emissions? How many old Firebirds - maybe even RA cars! - went to the crusher for pollution "credits"?
How much energy does it actually take to produce a new car? How much pollution is produced to make a new Prius? Does that really offset what an older but decently maintained car would produce?
Should we subsidize the purchase of these cars? Canada is giving people money after they buy one of the "approved" new cars to encourage more sales! How stupid is that! This is a program that is retroactive! The people bought the cars without the incentive yet they get a chunk of free money (well, taxpayers money, which to most politicians is the same thing)! Shouldn't this money stay in the hands of the regular people, who can't afford to buy gas let alone a new car?
By the way, here in Canada we're still getting ripped off on gas prices. Locally we're paying the equivalent of US$3.94 per US gallon.
One conspiracy theory was that the Kyoto protocol had more to do with crippling the North American economies than preventing global warming.
Gonna have to go look at those stumps, Garibaldi is only an hour from here, and a great lil 4WD run to get close....I just hope they were't originally cut by a gas powered chain saw!
"Inconveniently, "Inconvenient Truth" has been banned in Britain because of shoddy or blatantly wrong "scientific" reasoning or evidence! "
Good. At least there's some people ready to stand up for preventing BS from proliferating.
One thing about CO2 emmissions........China recently surpassed the USA. Let's hear all the "Al Gore's" of society start coming down on China. I would bet they don't because now the "Al Gore" bunch have just as much a vested interest in not fighting Big Business (just as the capitalists).
Originally Posted By Dave's White Rock '68 Droptop
Gonna have to go look at those stumps, Garibaldi is only an hour from here, and a great lil 4WD run to get close....I just hope they were't originally cut by a gas powered chain saw!
The entire subject is tailor made for people who want to blame humans. Temperature levels have always varied with multiple concurrent cycles; over hours, days, months, decades, centuries, millennia, etc. No matter what direction the cycle(s) are heading, a man-is-to-blame argument can be made and various smoke and mirrors rationale can be used.
there is no denying the excessive carbon dioxide emissions produced by the modern industrial age have had their effect on warming.
I love when people say this. I can deny it and you can't stop me.
When the oceans warm, they release CO2. It's obvious when you look at plots of warming cycles superimposed on CO2 levels.
theres LOTS of frozen ice at bottom of oceans...warm it up, CO`2 frozen in will come out, will rise... cooling of the land surface by just a few degrees will cause ice on land areas, glaciers...lot of volcano activity over years will cause ice age...but naaah, that never happened...must be man made....
and just because Al says CO2 will rise with temperature in the air, doesnt mean its so...temperature can also rise with CO2 levels....so which is it?
are we "contributing"? yes, how much? Nobody knows...does it have an impact? hmmm ...
If I gave $1 to George Bush`s campaign , did I contribute? YES
The effect of CO2 has been likened to layers of tint put over a window. The first layer blocks (or absorbs in the case of CO2) a lot of light. The next layer less, the next layer still less and so on. The overall effect of increasing amounts of CO2 isn't a runaway effect, it is a declining effect. Once it gets to a certain level the effect levels off.
Despite all the fairly wide variations in temperatures over the millenia, there's still no runaway trend. Earth won't ever turn into another Venus.
As noted, there are a lot of factors still not accounted for in the computer models that the "experts" are basing their theories on.
As noted, there are a lot of factors still not accounted for in the computer models that the "experts" are basing their theories on.
yeah ,why should we beleive that the "experts" are right THIS time? we were supposed to beleive they were right "last" time...then 35 yrs ago we were going towards a new ice age!
Just like the experts last year said , because of GW we were to have a record year of hurricanes...the,,,...oppps ,we were wrong , and next year (this one) will be a record.....so far we are behind the average...the two top hurricane years in 'recent' years being 2005 and 1969...
I think that tree stumps covered by ice for 7000 years and now they are thawed and uncovered points to something..... In my life the most noticeable sign is that most people I know have worse allergies than they had 5-10 years ago. I remember a talk show I was listening to on the radio when we were driving out west. People from all over the country were asking why their allergies were worse. This was before they figured out that the higher CO2 made it so plants put out more pollen. I noticed a few years back that the poison ivy is thriving in our woods. Worse than it's ever been in the 20 years we have lived here. I read the other day that this was also a sign of global warming. This might not be such a bad thing for the Earth. Maybe just bad/difficult for a few species that will have to adapt.
" I noticed a few years back that the poison ivy is thriving in our woods. Worse than it's ever been in the 20 years we have lived here. "
thats because of Big Foot! or because he`s been scared off...his favorite food is Poison Ivy ,and now when he`s scared off , he`s not eating it, and it thrives! you just cant blame everything on GW...some things are "man made" like WE (humans ) scare off Big Foot , so its our fault that Poison Ivy is thriving! WE are to blame , for everything....LOL
A lot of people have been putting two and two together and getting four thousand - somehow everything that is happening is blamed on a tiny difference that couldn't possibly be responsible.
The amount of increase in CO2 for the last 150 years is estimated at .010% by volume. Commercial greenhouse growers increase the amount of CO2 by about ten times that amount to encourage plant growth, but I haven't heard of any "pollen explosions" resulting from that!
The only way the eco-terrorists can maintain their power is to claim that they're the only ones who can see clearly what is happening and only they stand between us and total disaster. Kind of like the old shaman/medicine man thing when they made lots of wild claims and took all the credit (and power) when a couple actually happened. The eco-terrorists are also living off the rest of us while contributing nothing but confusion.
A lot of people have been putting two and two together and getting four thousand - somehow everything that is happening is blamed on a tiny difference that couldn't possibly be responsible.
The only way the eco-terrorists can maintain their power is to claim that they're the only ones who can see clearly what is happening and only they stand between us and total disaster. Kind of like the old shaman/medicine man thing when they made lots of wild claims and took all the credit (and power) when a couple actually happened. The eco-terrorists are also living off the rest of us while contributing nothing but confusion.
When this happens go back to basics; The only thing we know for sure is that CO2 levels are higher then they have been since we have been measuring it. Therefore, you can draw a line from that to some other things. You don't even have to stick your neck out. Like pollen counts are higher and some plants thrive. That part is a 'no-brainer' and isn't a product of any 'spin'.
The reasoning behind saying that pollen counts are higher and linking that to CO2 without doing some investigation is spin and presenting that as "fact" is "brainer no-using".
Logic and reasoning often have nothing to do with what is really happening, which is why theories are boundless and anything can be "proven" with rhetoric.
Cars today are putting out less pollution than they did thirty years ago. CO2 levels have been measured as being higher than they were thirty years ago, therefore more CO2 causes cars to pollute less.
But we have only been measuring CO2 for a very short slice of the planet's history. When tropical conditions existed over much of the planet, long before human interference, CO2 levels were undoubtedly higher than they are now. Coral reefs in Michigan (Petoskey stone) are a good indicator of previous global warmth cycles.
As for the thin layer of sand over your shells, Jim, the glaciers had a hand in that. We have two pieces of property that are glacial end-morianes, the dumping grounds when glaciers retreated. Downstate we have a ridge of 10' of pure sand over clay substrate. Up north we have about 15' of pure sand. Oil/gas deposits are at about 4500' down up north, and as the source of those deposits was decaying organic matter, the terrain was obviously much different in a previous global era.
Vikki 1969 Goldenrod Yellow / black 400 convertible numbers matching
The reasoning behind saying that pollen counts are higher and linking that to CO2 without doing some investigation is spin and presenting that as "fact" is "brainer no-using".
Logic and reasoning often have nothing to do with what is really happening, which is why theories are boundless and anything can be "proven" with rhetoric.
LOL There have been many studies that prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that higher CO2 does cause higher pollen counts. It's a given. No spin at all. I can see all the arguments for and against what is causing global warming. Let's not let the spinning fog up real scientifically proven ideas. Just because Gore and gang have no credibility left doesn't mean you can throw a wet blanket over all our scientists and their findings.
Doing the scientific research is the step that you left out in your "therefore" statement. That is the important step. Quantifying the effect rather than saying "yep, CO2 is up, the world is coming to an end and my corns are hurting" is what I'm trying to clarify.
And the jury is still out about global warming. The margin of error is higher than the claimed rise in temperature.
Maybe the poison ivy grows better when surrounded by certain other plants - or maybe somebody was trying to get a bigger crop and spilled some of the fertilizer.
As for the thin layer of sand over your shells, Jim, the glaciers had a hand in that. We have two pieces of property that are glacial end-morianes, the dumping grounds when glaciers retreated. Downstate we have a ridge of 10' of pure sand over clay substrate. Up north we have about 15' of pure sand. Oil/gas deposits are at about 4500' down up north, and as the source of those deposits was decaying organic matter, the terrain was obviously much different in a previous global era.
Have you seen the extrapolated maps of Michigan that show it as a rounded off, shorter peninsula? Those maps show the ridge in front of my house as the shoreline of a great sea. I presented the large sharks teeth we found on the beach to an anthropologist and that's were I got the information that there was a salt water sea north of Michigan which teemed with sea life.
I believe global temperature variations are natural and we will have to ride with the wave (both good and bad stuff) because we don't cause it or have the ability to change it.
I am more concerned with the disappearance of honeybees. I've been following the story for many months now and the reason they are disappearing is not yet known. Over 1/3 of our food production relies on the bees.
I think the allergy problem is contributed to by factors such as tightly sealed homes and indoor air pollution, mold, reliance on medications to suppress the body's natural adaptive functions, environmental and dietary chemicals that affect our body chemistry, and other contributing factors. Native animals don't seem to suffer the same ill effects we do when their environment is altered.
Vikki 1969 Goldenrod Yellow / black 400 convertible numbers matching
Doing the scientific research is the step that you left out in your "therefore" statement. That is the important step. Quantifying the effect rather than saying "yep, CO2 is up, the world is coming to an end and my corns are hurting" is what I'm trying to clarify.
And the jury is still out about global warming. The margin of error is higher than the claimed rise in temperature.
I thought everybody knew that higher CO2 meant higher pollen. It's one of those deals were I read and understand something but forget that some aren't on the same page. It seems like a very simple concept. No 'leap of faith' to me. Maybe you haven't ever heard of using CO2 in a grow room to enhance growing? Sorry for not adding all the scientific test data but that would be a little mundain in this case.
I think the allergy problem is contributed to by factors such as tightly sealed homes and indoor air pollution, mold, reliance on medications to suppress the body's natural adaptive functions, environmental and dietary chemicals that affect our body chemistry, and other contributing factors. Native animals don't seem to suffer the same ill effects we do when their environment is altered.
This may be the case. But it can't refute the fact that higher CO2s help plant life, like trees, to produce more pollen. It's a scientifically proven fact.
Have you seen the extrapolated maps of Michigan that show it as a rounded off, shorter peninsula? Those maps show the ridge in front of my house as the shoreline of a great sea. I presented the large sharks teeth we found on the beach to an anthropologist and that's were I got the information that there was a salt water sea north of Michigan which teemed with sea life.
Yes, I have. And prior to the sea was a carbon-rich environment, or perhaps the oil was from sea sediment. And of course we have those huge salt deposits under Lake Huron and Lake St. Clair and the adjoining areas. Either way, human interference was not a factor in the creation of those tropical seas, nor their extinction, nor the start or end of the ice ages.
Vikki 1969 Goldenrod Yellow / black 400 convertible numbers matching
Yellowbird Quote; "Either way, human interference was not a factor in the creation of those tropical seas, nor their extinction, nor the start or end of the ice ages".
You have a onesided argument there. I don't think you will find any reference in this complete thread where anyone said anything about believing that any global warming is/was man made.... You are preaching to the choir.
Pollen production is not as dependent on CO2 as it is on UV and temperature, according to this study. Higher UV and higher temperatures each decreased pollen production, even with higher CO2 levels.
Each plant has its own ideal environment, which is why it is hard to grow palm trees in Michigan or tulips in Texas. Plants and animals will either adapt to their environment, or will be replaced by other plants that better tolerate the environment. And many of the plants that tolerate our increasing urban sprawl and development are non-native and "weed" species, which in a native prairie or savannah are not prevalent species. When a parcel of land is bulldozed and left to lie fallow here, it's not the native grasses that colonize it, it's ragweed and dock and Queen Anne's Lace and chicory and plantain and other species commonly listed as weeds. The grasses are slower to establish and are out-competed before they can get a foothold. Same with trees, a clearcut and stumped or burned oak forest in Northern Michigan will often repopulate with scrub pine and aspen because oaks are so slow to start from seed.
Maybe the increasing CO2 levels will enhance the growth of native species so they can compete with the weeds.
Last edited by Yellowbird; 11/02/0702:36 PM.
Vikki 1969 Goldenrod Yellow / black 400 convertible numbers matching
If any of the Washington muckety-mucks should be ecstatic over increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the air, it should be the Secretary of Agriculture. After all, it is the USDA’s mission to “enhance the quality of life for the American people by supporting production of agriculture.”
Abundant research makes it absolutely clear that most agricultural crops grow like mad, and produce greater yields, when they’re fed high levels of carbon dioxide (CO2).
Yet this administration is not wont to rejoice over such good news, which accounts for Secretary Dan Glickman’s statement in an August 15 Department of Agriculture news release concerning the results of a new USDA study: “This research may help us better understand the troubling impact of high carbon dioxide levels on our environment and our health.”
Exactly what research has Glickman so “troubled”? Do the results show that increased levels of atmospheric CO2 are going to lead to a reduction in corn yields? Is the nation’s wheat crop going to fail? Are we all going to go hungry?
It turns out to be nothing of the kind. Instead, a USDA study by Lewis Ziska has found that ragweed pollen is increasing because of higher CO2 levels. That’s right, rising levels of ragweed pollen have the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture concerned about carbon dioxide levels. That is like receiving a $20 million lottery prize and complaining they forgot to give you your free ticket.
Sylvan Wittwer, chairman emeritus of the National Research Council’s Board on Agriculture and pioneering researcher into the effects of carbon dioxide and crop production, has written, “Globally, it is estimated that the overall crop productivity has already been increased by 10 percent because of [elevated levels] of CO2.”
How many hundreds of millions of people across the world have benefitted from that increased food supply? Yet Glickman is “troubled” by extra ragweed pollen.
It’s not that the USDA results are wrong. It shouldn’t be surprising to anyone who’s taken introductory plant biology that happy, healthy plants (such as those grown under elevated CO2 levels) produce lots of pollen—reproduction is one thing that happy plants (and animals) are very keen to do.
Is Glickman serious? Does he believe we should move to significantly reduce carbon dioxide levels, lower crop production, and reduce the quality of life across the planet because he gets the sniffles for a few weeks every September?
What’s more, that ragweed-CO2 connection is not quite so simple. The ragweed plant’s niche is ecological disturbances—old pastures, vacant lots, and wastelands not already occupied by trees, shrubs, or other species. With forests and shrubs thriving under higher CO2 levels, why should we assume there will be more “disturbed” land for ragweed to infest? And if there is, what in D.C. does that have to do with global warming?
Of course, that’s a rhetorical question. When political hay can be made by coughing up some new government study every few weeks about the evils of CO2 to a press willing to gag any opposing views, there is no down side.
Not yet, anyway. CO2's benefits the biosphere, especially in the way it will help feed the world’s ever growing population. It is becoming increasingly obvious that the positive effects of rising atmospheric CO2 levels will far outweigh the negatives. And that, despite Glickman’s protests, is nothing to sneeze at.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Robert E. Davis, Ph.D., is an associate professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia.
What’s more, that ragweed-CO2 connection is not quite so simple. The ragweed plant’s niche is ecological disturbances—old pastures, vacant lots, and wastelands not already occupied by trees, shrubs, or other species. With forests and shrubs thriving under higher CO2 levels, why should we assume there will be more “disturbed” land for ragweed to infest? And if there is, what in D.C. does that have to do with global warming?
Yes, it does. Higher CO2 may bring on a natural healing process. And I don't think that's a bad thing at all.
Vikki 1969 Goldenrod Yellow / black 400 convertible numbers matching
What’s more, that ragweed-CO2 connection is not quite so simple. The ragweed plant’s niche is ecological disturbances—old pastures, vacant lots, and wastelands not already occupied by trees, shrubs, or other species. With forests and shrubs thriving under higher CO2 levels, why should we assume there will be more “disturbed” land for ragweed to infest? And if there is, what in D.C. does that have to do with global warming?
Yes, it does. Higher CO2 may bring on a natural healing process. And I don't think that's a bad thing at all.
NO, not bad at all. Like I mentioned earlier in the thread. Global warming may actually be global healing.... Some species may have to adapt...
I believe global temperature variations are natural and we will have to ride with the wave (both good and bad stuff) because we don't cause it or have the ability to change it.
I am more concerned with the disappearance of honeybees. I've been following the story for many months now and the reason they are disappearing is not yet known. Over 1/3 of our food production relies on the bees.
Totally agree....but "some" may even come up with that the bees cant take the higher temperatures caused by GW...
Of course ,the warmest/driest summer we had in Sweden , 1955 ,had more Wasps than ever...they referred to it as the 'Wasp Summer'....even though I really enjoyed 1955 July-August, nice warm summer ,almost no rain, great for a kid on summer vacation!
