The coming Ice Age

[CrustyJeep]

What Question? That Global Warming is real??? :eeek:

You specifically said, "we definatly add to the Co2 levels, but by how much, that is the question that is alluding everyone". We have estimates. You disagree with them. Why?

 

[CrustyJeep]

This is exactly why I'm so skeptical, do you know the billions, if not trillions, of dollars there is involved in green products, and climate research. Imagine how much pressure the scientific community has to come out with the "right" data.

Why would the scientific community have pressure to come up with the "right" data? That's ridiculous. The scientific community is under constant pressure to come up with CORRECT data.

 

[WHITE TRASH1]

Who said we will have a lasting effect on the Earth? Nice strawman there, Trashy. We won't hurt the planet one bit... the life currently existing on the planet, however, is a different story. How many species have we driven to extinction already? How many more will we kill off by radically changing the climate? If we kill ourselves off first, maybe the rest of the species will do ok. :)

Species die off all the time without our help, I'm not we should make a concerted effort to kill more off but we shouldn't go crazy keeping the weak/dying species around.

Sure... some bacteria will eat the crude oil we spill into the oceans. How many species can't eat it and die, instead? Let's see... how many fish, mammal, and avian species are there in/near our oceans? Again... we could dump all the oil we want into the oceans, and we won't hurt the planet. Perhaps kill the vast majority of life in/near the oceans, but the planet won't care.

I don't want us to spill ANY oil into the ocean. Not that I give a **** about the plankton or seagulls at all I'm a selfish bastard so I want it refined for my gas tank. I just used the crude oil spill as an example.

Let's see... from http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php

Light-duty vehicles emit 3 billion metric tons of CO2 per year. Mt. St. Helens erupting in 1980... 10 million metric tons. So, if we have 300 Mt. St. Helens-style eruptions this year, you might be right.

Until then, I think I'll trust the extensive research performed by scientists around the world rather than the hunch of a truck driver on a 4x4 board... just sayin...

WTF does that have to do with what I said? Nothing. I said chances are that the higher CO2 levels are higher because there aren't as many tree's etc around using it in photosynthesis.

No I don't think we should all drive around in diesels with the fuel turned up shoving so called greenhouse gases into the air quite the contrary I'm all for emissions testing if it is done by the tailpipe ONLY. All the current emission testing is good for is controlling the subjects of this nation. Who gives a **** if you have a blown alcohol burning big block in your 79 pinto if it passes the tail pipe sniff test then it's fine.

Jaydog brings up the junk science point and I really do believe that there are a lot of scientists that cave under pressure and bend and tweak data until it fits with who is coughing up the money for the research. I don't believe there is a lot of pure science left out there these days. Not that my opinion matters I'm just a dumb truck driver. :D

 

[CrustyJeep]

I said chances are that the higher CO2 levels are higher because there aren't as many tree's etc around using it in photosynthesis.

That certainly part of it, but do you really think digging millions of tons of carbon compounds up that have been buried for millions of years and then burning it isn't a significant contributing factor? Really?

 

[WHITE TRASH1]

That certainly part of it, but do you really think digging millions of tons of carbon compounds up that have been buried for millions of years and then burning it isn't a significant contributing factor? Really?

Of course I believe we have contributed to the increased levels that's 2nd grade science. I think the so called "carbon credit" plan has some merit. but it is a waste of time if the people in power here in the US ignore places like china and india that spew more pollution into the environment than we ever have while they go after the US citizenry as the bad guy driving our cars to work.

 

[CrustyJeep]

Of course I believe we have contributed to the increased levels that's 2nd grade science. I think the so called "carbon credit" plan has some merit. but it is a waste of time if the people in power here in the US ignore places like china and india that spew more pollution into the environment than we ever have while they go after the US citizenry as the bad guy driving our cars to work.

Ah, so your butthurt about being called the bad guy. Guess what... Nobody called you the bad guy.

And what do you propose we do about China and India? Should we invade, or what?

 

[WHITE TRASH1]

Ah, so your butthurt about being called the bad guy. Guess what... Nobody called you the bad guy.

And what do you propose we do about China and India? Should we invade, or what?

Not butthurt at all about some people considering myself and millions of others bad guys for driving. You know better than than to think I honestly give a **** about their opinion.

What should we do? How about we stop importing so much **** from china and stop outsourcing so much tech support to india. That's at least a tiny start. We aren't doing **** about it now so anything is better than nothing I'd think.

 

[Jaydog]

You specifically said, "we definatly add to the Co2 levels, but by how much, that is the question that is alluding everyone". We have estimates. You disagree with them. Why?

A lot of different estimates, but they are all different, when they all agree, then I might.

Why would the scientific community have pressure to come up with the "right" data? That's ridiculous. The scientific community is under constant pressure to come up with CORRECT data.

Money, they get grants to do research, if a certain party wants specific data, then they obviously won't give a grant to a group of scientists that disagree, if you give more money to one side and not to the other, then which data will you have more of?

And what do you propose we do about China and India? Should we invade, or what?

We can't do anything to them, they own us, we are way too in debt and our military is spread so thin we can tell anyone to do anything, and they will continue to spew uncontrolled Co2 into the air, while Americans are forced to drive a prius to save the planet. If we went strictly to Nuclear power all over the world then the Co2 levels would probably drop from 380ppm back to historic 250ppm-280ppm and the polar bears, baby seals, and unicorns would flourish and fly over rainbows. :D

 

[whatthe?]

My guess is Zedmikey is still in college and hasn't entered the world of political agendas, getting grant money, entities protecting their turf, ect. Example, my wife worked for DFW on salmon recovery. There was a ten year study on the impact of hatcheries on salmon return. At the end of the study the data showed that hatcheries make no statistical difference on returns. They were made to bury the study because if it was released, it would greatly impact funding for state and tribal fisheries. Climate change is a politcal tool.

 

[Jaydog]

They were made to bury the study because if it was released, it would greatly impact funding for state and tribal fisheries. Climate change is a political tool.

The funny thing is that NOAA is just now releasing a new manual on their "Scientific Integrity Policy" because of the misinformation that has been put out, it's pretty bad when you have to make an integrity policy for your scientists, but at least they are trying to deal with the problem.

 

[whatthe?]

Remember you can prove anything with statistics. Get rid of outlyers, change the data pool, increase/decrease the sample size. I saw lots of this when I was at college.

 

[ZedMikey]

Species die off all the time without our help, I'm not we should make a concerted effort to kill more off but we shouldn't go crazy keeping the weak/dying species around.

All those weak and dying species that can't handle being hunted to extinction... or can't handle the destruction of their ecosystems. Stupid weaklings.... **** 'em.

WTF does that have to do with what I said? Nothing. I said chances are that the higher CO2 levels are higher because there aren't as many tree's etc around using it in photosynthesis.

*sigh...* Damn you people are thick sometimes... do I have to spell everything out for you? I will grant you that CO2 levels are indeed higher because of deforestation... plants to indeed filter CO2 from the atmosphere. Interestingly, here is a paper that suggests the other aspects of massive deforestation could have a net cooling effect. http://www.pnas.org/content/104/16/6550.full.pdf+html So, deforestation (while bad for plenty of other reasons) may not be contributing as significantly as you may have thought.

What I was alluding to, however, was the fact that human CO2 emissions are orders of magnitude higher than natural ones. Even without deforestation, we would still be pumping billions of metric tons of CO2 into the air that would throw off the Earth's natural carbon cycle. The carbon cycle (that over the past 800,000 years or so has been in a fairly solid equilibrium) would have to find a new equilibrium because of our inputs.

I have to run and catch a ferry... I have much more to say in response to some of these latest posts...

 

[CrustyJeep]

A lot of different estimates, but they are all different, when they all agree, then I might.

So if ten people all give you a number between 100 and 200, because they don't agree, you'll just stick with your own number of 7, huh? :lol:

 

[whatthe?]

I have to run and catch a ferry... QUOTE]

Are you in San Francisco?:D

 

[CrustyJeep]

Are you in San Francisco?:D

You don't have to "catch" ferries in San Francisco.

 

[whatthe?]

:haha:

 

[WHITE TRASH1]

All those weak and dying species that can't handle being hunted to extinction... or can't handle the destruction of their ecosystems. Stupid weaklings.... **** 'em.

We don't hunt anything to extinction anymore. Quite opposite we control how many of what species can be taken from where and when to keep the population up. The minute random insects and plants that don't do a damned thing other than give control to the endangered species act are the ones that can eat a deep fried pecker. The seagull is protected... Seriously, there are about as many of those annoying fawking things as there are bums on the pier. Open season, **** 'em is right.

*sigh...* Damn you people are thick sometimes... do I have to spell everything out for you? I will grant you that CO2 levels are indeed higher because of deforestation... plants to indeed filter CO2 from the atmosphere. Interestingly, here is a paper that suggests the other aspects of massive deforestation could have a net cooling effect. http://www.pnas.org/content/104/16/6550.full.pdf+html So, deforestation (while bad for plenty of other reasons) may not be contributing as significantly as you may have thought.

What I was alluding to, however, was the fact that human CO2 emissions are orders of magnitude higher than natural ones. Even without deforestation, we would still be pumping billions of metric tons of CO2 into the air that would throw off the Earth's natural carbon cycle. The carbon cycle (that over the past 800,000 years or so has been in a fairly solid equilibrium) would have to find a new equilibrium because of our inputs.

I have to run and catch a ferry... I have much more to say in response to some of these latest posts...

Yea I know it's tough being so damned smart isn't it? Please hurry back and keep trying to educate all of us worthless plebs.

Yes we here in the US pollute. But until you figure out a way to get china and india to decrease their pollution we could park every vehicle in the US and stop all "dirty" energy and it wouldn't mean a helluva lot in the grand scheme.

 

[CrustyJeep]

Yes we here in the US pollute. But until you figure out a way to get china and india to decrease their pollution we could park every vehicle in the US and stop all "dirty" energy and it wouldn't mean a helluva lot in the grand scheme.

It's called lead by example. Which, in many ways, China is doing. China is KILLING us in the solar industry.

 

[WHITE TRASH1]

It's called lead by example. Which, in many ways, China is doing. China is KILLING us in the solar industry.

Yes they are leading the way in solar but at the same time killing everyone with their extreme polluting ways. If you kill someone does it really make it better if you bought them dinner first? :redneck:

 

[ZedMikey]

Yea I know it's tough being so damned smart isn't it? Please hurry back and keep trying to educate all of us worthless plebs.

Yes we here in the US pollute. But until you figure out a way to get china and india to decrease their pollution we could park every vehicle in the US and stop all "dirty" energy and it wouldn't mean a helluva lot in the grand scheme.

It's not that you're a worthless pleb... it's that I don't think you're really as dense as you come across. :flipoff:

I could only quickly find numbers for 2008... http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html

If the US stopped CO2 emissions all together, by those numbers, that would be a global reduction of about 25%. That would mean a hell of a lot. It's unrealistic... but it would be an amazing reduction. It's probably a smaller fraction now, but it is still significant.

 

[ZedMikey]

Are you in San Francisco?:D

Homophones lose much of their impact in the written word... perhaps a homonym would work better next time. :fawkdancesmiley:

 

[ZedMikey]

My guess is Zedmikey is still in college and hasn't entered the world of political agendas, getting grant money, entities protecting their turf, ect. Example, my wife worked for DFW on salmon recovery. There was a ten year study on the impact of hatcheries on salmon return. At the end of the study the data showed that hatcheries make no statistical difference on returns. They were made to bury the study because if it was released, it would greatly impact funding for state and tribal fisheries. Climate change is a politcal tool.

And your guess would be wrong. Thanks for playing. Try again next week.

 

[Ty.]

If the US stopped CO2 emissions all together, by those numbers, that would be a global reduction of about 25%. That would mean a hell of a lot. It's unrealistic... but it would be an amazing reduction. It's probably a smaller fraction now, but it is still significant.

All the environmental bull**** is breaking us. We could stop driving, stop burning coal, stop logging, and stop fishing. Then when we are completely broke China can take us over, and burn our bodies to fuel their new factories.:cheer:

 

[Jaydog]

So if ten people all give you a number between 100 and 200, because they don't agree, you'll just stick with your own number of 7, huh? :lol:

:eeek:

I agree that the Co2 levels are 380ppm or whatever, one side says that humans are 100% to blame for the rise, the other side says that humans are 25% to blame, it's probably somewhere in the middle but there is absolutely no hard evidence on either side, and I'm not going to give up my SUV, Truck or way of life for a hypothesis that is riddled with politically tainted results. :kissmyass:

 

[CrustyJeep]

I'm not going to give up my SUV, Truck or way of life

Nobody said you had to. Relax, maaaan :lol:

 

[Gibby1]

And now you're falling into the trap of using the word "theory" incorrectly. In science, a theory isn't just a guess... a hypothesis is a guess... but an educated one. A theory is a hypothesis that has undergone significant testing and been shown to be an accurate, demonstrable, repeatable explanation of the data.

The gravitational theory... germ theory... atomic theory... etc... not guesses.

As for "way too much going on within our solar system that we truly don't understand..." Like what? What is happening in our solar system has us so baffled that you will completely disregard anything that is said about global climate change that goes against your preconceived notions? What is it that makes you ignore the majority of climate scientists in favor of conservative editorials spouting the same old bull**** that we know is false?

You're way too funny. So the THEORY of evolution has been shown to be accurate, demonstratable and repeatable explanation of the data? HAHAHA, That's WAY too funny. The THEORY of evolution has been refuted more often that it's been supported as scientific evidence continues to be gathered. So has the global cooling, global warming, global cooling, ah crap, we'll just call it climate change because we don't really know WTF is going to happen. The theory of climate change...

 

[whatthe?]

You're way too funny. So the THEORY of evolution has been shown to be accurate, demonstratable and repeatable explanation of the data? HAHAHA, That's WAY too funny. The THEORY of evolution has been refuted more often that it's been supported as scientific evidence continues to be gathered. So has the global cooling, global warming, global cooling, ah crap, we'll just call it climate change because we don't really know WTF is going to happen. The theory of climate change...

This is were science runs into the problem of protecting it's funding, peoples personal agenda, political agendas, ect. The idea of untainted research/data/conclusions is nice but not very realistic.

 

[CrustyJeep]

You're way too funny. So the THEORY of evolution has been shown to be accurate, demonstratable and repeatable explanation of the data? HAHAHA, That's WAY too funny. The THEORY of evolution has been refuted more often that it's been supported as scientific evidence continues to be gathered.

"I hate the idea that I evolved from a monkey, therefore the theory of evolution is stupid" is not "evidence" :lol:

 

[Jaydog]

"I hate the idea that I evolved from a monkey, therefore the theory of evolution is stupid" is not "evidence" :lol:

You didn't evolve from a monkey, nobody did, and there is absolutely zero proof to even suggest something like that, so you don't need to hate it anymore :D

 

[CrustyJeep]

You didn't evolve from a monkey, nobody did, and there is absolutely zero proof to even suggest something like that, so you don't need to hate it anymore :D

Yeah, I know I didn't evolve from a monkey, which is what makes that statement even more hilarious... Some people think that's what scientists say happened :lol: