Global warming? Not here theres not.

[Thinktanx]

I also just found that Al Gore tries to offset all Carbon expenditures. So i can respect that. I was a little harsh on him there.

I read/heard somewhere that if you track that money it's circular going back to his business inerests. I don't recall, I took it as part of the anti-Gore GOP flame war. One thing for sure, Al Gore is part of the upper upper class of US culture that really has no clue what it's like live without privilege. Unfortunately that's where many politicians come from.

Well, if he has money tied up in renewable energies, which is probable, then I'm sure some of that money does come back in his dividend checks. It never ends...

[forge]

I also just found that Al Gore tries to offset all Carbon expenditures. So i can respect that. I was a little harsh on him there.

I read/heard somewhere that if you track that money it's circular going back to his business inerests. I don't recall, I took it as part of the anti-Gore GOP flame war. One thing for sure, Al Gore is part of the upper upper class of US culture that really has no clue what it's like live without privilege. Unfortunately that's where many politicians come from.

that seems to be the most unfortunate thing about the American electoral system - it's democracy with a big BUT....But you have to have millions to fund the campaign trail so it's democracy for the rich

at least in Australia there have been prime ministers who have left school at 15 and worked in the real world before they got there - not saying it's perfect here at all, just less divided into rich vs poor - although it is changing to that effect....

[Tone Deft]

at least in Australia there have been prime ministers who have left school at 15 and worked in the real world before they got there - not saying it's perfect here at all, just less divided into rich vs poor - although it is changing to that effect....

Australia was the other notable country that didn't sign the Kyoto agreement.

Politicians, blech. At least Clinton played the Saxamophone.

[forge]

at least in Australia there have been prime ministers who have left school at 15 and worked in the real world before they got there - not saying it's perfect here at all, just less divided into rich vs poor - although it is changing to that effect....

Australia was the other notable country that didn't sign the Kyoto agreement.

Politicians, blech. At least Clinton played the Saxamophone.

I know cause of the bastard howard government

kind of a similar situation to the dubbaya thing - half the country stopped caring and just wanted the guy who stood for greed

the point i was making was that at least here they dont need millions to run for office - meaning there is at least a chance normal people could run the country - but I guess that is an oxymoron where politicians are concerned

[pabloaugustus]

I believe in global warming!

I grew up in Alaska. I remember snow falling in October, now it falls in late November. I remember being able to make tunnels in my front yard because it was 4-5 feet high some winters. Now it's shitty wet snow. I also remember being able to snowboard a LOT more and in much, much better conditions. There's nothing quite like a heavy snowfall one night, and a crisp, cold, sunny, bluebird sky with fluffy powder everywhere the next day.

Shit, I also don't remember there being forest fires blanketing Anchorage with smoke at all. Every season for the last 5-7 years there has been a forest fire. It's super hot right now, about 80 degrees, and quite humid. This made thunder and lightning, which I also don't remember very much of growing up. Finally, where the fuck are all the bees?! I've seen maybe TWO bumblebees this summer, and a total of zero yellowjacket nests. This is very unusual, as I work in the garden during the day, and actively patrol the eaves of the house for any nesting activity.

Whether it's global warming, climate change, or just my own perception, I don't know. But some things definitely appear to be changing.

thing is what you remember in your whole lifetime is not really significant as there have been changes just as significant throughout history - such as the medieval warm period: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_warm_period
and the little ice age: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
(although ironically in that MWP link there is a graph showing temperatures in 2004 higher than the MWP! - but even still it's not up to the level that will be most worrying)

These changes that some of us have noticed in our lifetime may or may not be significant, I don't think you can really say one way or the other for the reasons you point out. However, I believe it is significant because we are seeing for the first time, in this present day, the effects of polution at the beginning of the industrial revolution. As our activities over the past 200 years catch up with, I believe we will be seeing in our lifetime more and more direct effects of global warming....only time will tell, but by then it'll probably be too late.

Just read an article about the mass die out of coral and the breakdown of the cycle that keeps the oceans PH balanced....they are becoming increasingly acidic in a vicious cycle that will cause many species to die out in this century.

oh well, we may just have to make way for a future species of intelligent life more adapted to live on this planet as we have made it....we should put ableton live and a laptop in a time capsule so they can judge the accomplishments of our civilization.

[rasputin]

Just another data point: for those of us alive in the 1980s, "acid rain" was considered the most urgent environmental crisis.

How often do you hear about that anymore?

Earlier than that, an author named Rachel Carson wrote a book called Silent Spring which basically made the point that the world would be a dead shell within a few years due to pollution and use of pesticides and insecticides.

How often do people reference that anymore?

Just sayin'.

Something to think about. It's like a cult almost; if anyone questions the global warming dogma, even with scientific or rational arguments, they're shouted down as baby-eating neocon knownothings.

...r...

[forge]

funny enough the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Commission - government funded, notoriously left wing TV station) advertised tonight a show coming up "global warming - great hoax?" or something similar

the ad showed snippets that were saying it's been totally hyped up on the usual fearmongering type shit that normally happens

but I'll watch it when it's on then comment

[Tone Deft]

that seems to be the most unfortunate thing about the American electoral system - it's democracy with a big BUT....But you have to have millions to fund the campaign trail so it's democracy for the rich

at least in Australia there have been prime ministers who have left school at 15 and worked in the real world before they got there - not saying it's perfect here at all, just less divided into rich vs poor - although it is changing to that effect....

I wish people would stop the redundant hype about american politics and talk more about other countries, and I don't mean Venezuela. I mean France just had a change in head of government and not a peep here. I'd like to know about what's going on abroad from people that live there.

[Wishbone]

global warming is totally nonsensical. This is because global warming depends on a global temperature. however, you cannot have a single temperature for a non homogeneous system, its against thermodynamics. Therefore global warming does not exist.

Wishbone, I think your logic is a little nonsensical. Thermodynamics is a statistical science, where tools like averages are used to describe large systems. You're right, the earth is not the same temperature all over. This does not mean that the average temperature cannot change.

On top of that, records like cores drilled from glacial ice (taken from different points around the world, which can be compiled and made to represent average temperatures) show that the earth's average temperature is currently increasing faster than at any other recorded time.

Sorry to get testy, but I've got a pet peeve against bad science being used to 'proove' points to people. Admittedly, climate change is a complex argument and both sides have been somewhat guilty of doing so.

no you're missing the point, by definition a temperature has to describe a homogeneous system. This isn't bad science, its the fact that gore & company do no understand the definition of temperature. This global temperature has been likened to the "average" phone number in a phonebook, or "average" currency rate. It simply doesn't mean anything.

Climate change is due to differences in temperatures, not the average total temperature. Moreover, depending on how you take the average of this global temperature, it has both risen and fallen.

However, since there is no physical reason to choose one type of averaging method over another, its, like I said, nonsensical.


If you think my logic is nonsensical, than you are also saying the logic of some of the top physicists in the field of thermodynamics is flawed.

[djadonis206]

the ad showed snippets that were saying it's been totally hyped up on the usual fearmongering type shit that normally happens

but I'll watch it when it's on then comment

Interested...I saw the Al gore movie and it makes sence

but the other day at dinner Alena's dad said something a lot of people seem to miss the point on


we've always had crazy weather - hurricanes, storms, hot and cold


I'm not saying Global Warming isn't real - I just think people shouldn't be so quick to chalk up a hurricane or a freak snow storm to Global Warming

now when it starts snowing in August in Jamaica I'll start to worry

[noisetonepause]

global warming is totally nonsensical. This is because global warming depends on a global temperature. however, you cannot have a single temperature for a non homogeneous system, its against thermodynamics. Therefore global warming does not exist.

Wishbone, I think your logic is a little nonsensical. Thermodynamics is a statistical science, where tools like averages are used to describe large systems. You're right, the earth is not the same temperature all over. This does not mean that the average temperature cannot change.

On top of that, records like cores drilled from glacial ice (taken from different points around the world, which can be compiled and made to represent average temperatures) show that the earth's average temperature is currently increasing faster than at any other recorded time.

Sorry to get testy, but I've got a pet peeve against bad science being used to 'proove' points to people. Admittedly, climate change is a complex argument and both sides have been somewhat guilty of doing so.

no you're missing the point, by definition a temperature has to describe a homogeneous system. This isn't bad science, its the fact that gore & company do no understand the definition of temperature. This global temperature has been likened to the "average" phone number in a phonebook, or "average" currency rate. It simply doesn't mean anything.

Climate change is due to differences in temperatures, not the average total temperature. Moreover, depending on how you take the average of this global temperature, it has both risen and fallen.

However, since there is no physical reason to choose one type of averaging method over another, its, like I said, nonsensical.


If you think my logic is nonsensical, than you are also saying the logic of some of the top physicists in the field of thermodynamics is flawed.

Right. We'll say 'carbon emissions induced climate change' instead, then...

[eyeknow]

some contributing factors to "poison/pollution" in our society.....

cars/planes/trains/boats/emissions (really just about any travel)
batteries/any kind
radioctive waste
all chemical waste
plastics when not recycled
land fills (methane)
cigarettes (not the others, the tobacco will desolve....but the butts wont)
use of chemicals (not the waste, that's above)
glass
rubber
concrete
most metals
most electricty
coal

[Wishbone]

Right. We'll say 'carbon emissions induced climate change' instead, then...

what? they base the climate change on this "Average temperature" therefore it doesnt make sense.

Ill be more clear

Global warming=increase in global temperature

global temperature= totally nonsensical because its not a homogenius system

therefore global warming=totally nonsensical

[eyeknow]

well, this two-room super computer PLUS farming out info to home/satellite users is how much power was needed to "map" the temp change over the next 100 years.

It says abou 3 degrees which = global warming.

However, they can't get the weather right for the next day most of time with this super/monster/computer......so I wouldn't worry too much.



On another note, to add to the list...

breeding.

[noisetonepause]

Right. We'll say 'carbon emissions induced climate change' instead, then...

what? they base the climate change on this "Average temperature" therefore it doesnt make sense.

Ill be more clear

Global warming=increase in global temperature

global temperature= totally nonsensical because its not a homogenius system

therefore global warming=totally nonsensical

I'm still not convinced that you're right. Temperature averages everywhere are up, the polar ice caps are decreasing in size, and weather patterns and other cycles (like the amount of algae in the seas) are changing because of this - I am quite sure those are all undisputable facts (the dispute is about whether or not those changes are effected by human waste).

I'm not sure what you mean by 'not a homogenous system' - noone is saying that the temperature is the same all over the globe? - but I don't think your 'average phone number' analogy holds water. If the temperature averages measured in Greenland, Denmark, Egypt, South Africa and Antartica (random names, I don't have data handy) have all been rising over the past ten-twenty, then it does indeed make sense to say that 'global temperature averages are up'.