riptides
Super Star Member
Interesting, how does one explain the deer "brain waste" which is surfacing at an alarming rate.
-Mike Z. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
-Mike Z. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Greenhouse effect ???
- Thread starter tposts
- Start date
- Views: 7344
PitbullMidwest
Platinum Member
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( I tell you what IS interesting. A certain political figure talking about this subject, for free. )</font>
Yet he has declined every invitation to publically debate the subject with those of opposing views.
Yet he has declined every invitation to publically debate the subject with those of opposing views.
CRJCaptain
Silver Member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2003
- Messages
- 133
- Tractor
- Bobcat Toolcat 5600
( Alarmist claims like global warming, global cooling or asteroids hitting the earth are necessary if you have any hope of getting a research grant. All you have to do is follow the money. )
I'll admit, the science of climate models has got a ways to go. There's also too much "pseudo-science" going on and mostly attributed to politically affiliated organizations on both sides of the fence.
I'll tell you though, I have serious concerns when glaciers and ice sheets that have been around for thousands of years start to disappear. I can't immediately dismiss this as "alarmist". The permafrost/tundra is even retreating in parts of the Arctic in Canada. If there is a canary in a coal mine in this scenario, this is likely it.
On a final note, if you want the least biased info on this subject, go straight to the peer-reviewed science itself:
National Center for Atmospheric Research
I'll admit, the science of climate models has got a ways to go. There's also too much "pseudo-science" going on and mostly attributed to politically affiliated organizations on both sides of the fence.
I'll tell you though, I have serious concerns when glaciers and ice sheets that have been around for thousands of years start to disappear. I can't immediately dismiss this as "alarmist". The permafrost/tundra is even retreating in parts of the Arctic in Canada. If there is a canary in a coal mine in this scenario, this is likely it.
On a final note, if you want the least biased info on this subject, go straight to the peer-reviewed science itself:
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Toy , I put 3 9mm slugs thru my TV back in 1979 and I haven't looked back yet..... /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif Ernie, Get yourself a .45ACP, you can drop a big screen with ONE shot! /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
AutoUnionTypeC
Silver Member
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Interesting, how does one explain the deer "brain waste" which is surfacing at an alarming rate.
-Mike Z. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif )</font>
Hmmmm….how about hunters taking up the practice of feeding deer. The first cases here in N.Y. were on a game preserve. I'm not sure if the animals were being raised for traditional slaughter or canned hunts.
Two other things…… while it is true the earth has been warming for some time the acceleration since the beginning of the industrial revaluation has been marked. Secondly while the overall warming of the earth is undeniable it doesn’t mean everthing will be baking. The fact is we are not sure of all the ramifications. Indeed, the cooling of the gulfstream was unpredicted or to be more accurate, recently predicted. The recent spat of bitter cold winters in Europe are attributed to this phenomenon.
Regards, Jamie
-Mike Z. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif )</font>
Hmmmm….how about hunters taking up the practice of feeding deer. The first cases here in N.Y. were on a game preserve. I'm not sure if the animals were being raised for traditional slaughter or canned hunts.
Two other things…… while it is true the earth has been warming for some time the acceleration since the beginning of the industrial revaluation has been marked. Secondly while the overall warming of the earth is undeniable it doesn’t mean everthing will be baking. The fact is we are not sure of all the ramifications. Indeed, the cooling of the gulfstream was unpredicted or to be more accurate, recently predicted. The recent spat of bitter cold winters in Europe are attributed to this phenomenon.
Regards, Jamie
YanmarFever
Elite Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2002
- Messages
- 4,078
- Location
- Eating a melon..
- Tractor
- Mahindra 5010C- Branson 4520r- 5520C- Yanmar FX235-D - Bad Boy rogue mower
Toy, that was back in 1979, I now keep an HK USP full size in 45, packed with flying ashtrays. One in the shop and 1 in the truck. glock 26 on the waist
Ern.
Ern.
AKfish
Super Member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2004
- Messages
- 5,420
- Location
- Alaska
- Tractor
- JD 5115M; JD 110 TLB; JD 4720; Ford 9N; JD X300R
I've lived in Alaska just a short time -- little less than 29 years. I like to hunt the mountains. Snow fields and glaciers where the Dall sheep and Mt. goats reside. Take a look at my picture scrapbook. Then we can take a short plane ride to look at those areas now. The changes leave me blank... Miles of glaciers gone -- receded away in the short time I've been here. I am not one to rant and rave and waste a lot of time pointing fingers at one political party or another. But it is DRAMATICALLY CLEAR to me that this nation needs an energy policy and a strong emphasis on alternative methods of generating energy. All sources --- nuclear, wind, biofuels, etc. No more fiddling around attempting to make more money for cronies and vested interest groups. This country needs to start moving forward on this issue both from an environmental vantage and from the perspective of national security. "Nuff said. AKfish /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif
( That being said; I love my tractor and they'll have to pry the key out of my cold hands...) /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
( That being said; I love my tractor and they'll have to pry the key out of my cold hands...) /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
dmccarty
Super Star Member
I tried to stay out of this... But....
Global Warming cannot be denied.
Man causing Global Warming is too large of a jump for me to get on that bandwaggon.
There was a 300 year long ittle ice age from the 1400s to the 1700s. No way this was caused by man nor the warming that happened after the cold left. New England had snow on the ground in the summer for a couple of weeks. People just had to pick up and move to survive. When I was in middle school. the science said its time for a new ice age. That science has not changed. There is the Atlantic Conveyor theory that seems logical to me. Basically the earth warms up, the fresh water ice on the poles melts which in turn disrupts the ocean currents and turns off the movment of heat from the equator to the poles and vice versa. Boom. Ice Age. Is this happening now? Who knows. Is this warming cause by the sun? Some think so. Is this warming just a little blip or some long term event? Who knows.
We are on this earth for a little nit of time. Most of what happens on this planet takes place of time scales beyond our comprehension. We hear people say that 2005 was the biggest baddest hurricane season ever. Really, who was around 300 years ago measuring the number, size and strength of storms? How about the hole in the ozone? It seems to have disappeared. Was its filling due to changes we made? Or was it some other event that we don't know a thing about?
This does not mean we should dirty up our planet but we should also not run around like Chicken Little. The US gets beat up for not signing the Kyoto Treaty. But it looks like we will cut our emissions farther than required by the treaty while some of the EU countries will not have done so.
If we want clean energy you really have to go Nuke. Sorry Solar ain't there. Maybe if lots of money was invested. Maybe it would work but the economics are not there yet. And if its cloudy out you have a problem even if the economic problems have been worked out. Far more people die every year because of the use of coal as an energy source than the number of deaths due to nuke power production.
In my area we have a large nuke plant. The energy company wants to build a new reactor at the stie which makes sense since the plant was designed to have four reactors. The local greenies are upset of course. They actually said that Nuke plants caused Global Warming! /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif The same group fought for years to prevent low level radioactive waste being stored at the facility. I wish the people who argue against this stuff would have to live without the benifits provided by the material/energy they rail against.
Later,
Dan
Global Warming cannot be denied.
Man causing Global Warming is too large of a jump for me to get on that bandwaggon.
There was a 300 year long ittle ice age from the 1400s to the 1700s. No way this was caused by man nor the warming that happened after the cold left. New England had snow on the ground in the summer for a couple of weeks. People just had to pick up and move to survive. When I was in middle school. the science said its time for a new ice age. That science has not changed. There is the Atlantic Conveyor theory that seems logical to me. Basically the earth warms up, the fresh water ice on the poles melts which in turn disrupts the ocean currents and turns off the movment of heat from the equator to the poles and vice versa. Boom. Ice Age. Is this happening now? Who knows. Is this warming cause by the sun? Some think so. Is this warming just a little blip or some long term event? Who knows.
We are on this earth for a little nit of time. Most of what happens on this planet takes place of time scales beyond our comprehension. We hear people say that 2005 was the biggest baddest hurricane season ever. Really, who was around 300 years ago measuring the number, size and strength of storms? How about the hole in the ozone? It seems to have disappeared. Was its filling due to changes we made? Or was it some other event that we don't know a thing about?
This does not mean we should dirty up our planet but we should also not run around like Chicken Little. The US gets beat up for not signing the Kyoto Treaty. But it looks like we will cut our emissions farther than required by the treaty while some of the EU countries will not have done so.
If we want clean energy you really have to go Nuke. Sorry Solar ain't there. Maybe if lots of money was invested. Maybe it would work but the economics are not there yet. And if its cloudy out you have a problem even if the economic problems have been worked out. Far more people die every year because of the use of coal as an energy source than the number of deaths due to nuke power production.
In my area we have a large nuke plant. The energy company wants to build a new reactor at the stie which makes sense since the plant was designed to have four reactors. The local greenies are upset of course. They actually said that Nuke plants caused Global Warming! /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif The same group fought for years to prevent low level radioactive waste being stored at the facility. I wish the people who argue against this stuff would have to live without the benifits provided by the material/energy they rail against.
Later,
Dan
HammerFour
Gold Member
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2002
- Messages
- 297
- Location
- Holt, Missouri
- Tractor
- Kubota B7100, JD Gator 6X4, Kubota L2350, JD 14T Baler, JD 894A Side Delivery Rake, IH 100 Balance Sickle Mower
I'm not panicing by any means, but bird flu is something to be concerned about.
The last major flu pandemic was "Spanish Flu" in 1918, 20 - 40 million people died worldwide.
The concern about bird flu is if it mutates enough to start spreading from birds to humans ( which it has somewhat ) and then spreading from humans to other humans, we will have another pandemic.
The human mortality rate of bird flu is over 75 percent at this time.
I don't want to be called an alarmist, but if bird flu starts transmitting from person to person, we could have another pandemic.
This doesn't have anything to do with how well you cook your chicken or turkey before you eat it.
Oh and back on topic, I believe the Earth goes thru climate cycles that we don't really understand, human industrial progress may be having an effect, but I don't think we understand what it is right now either.
I heard an interesting story about an author that did a book on one of the Children's Blizzard of 1888 that killed 500 people in one weekend.
The author talked about the mini ice age that effected the northern great plains in the late 1800s, it was very interesting to hear about this, I had no idea that any of this had occurred.
So weather cycles continue with out us really knowing why at this point, I also recall the harsher winters of the late 70's and early 80's. We got enough snow around Kansas City, Missouri those years to make snow forts and build tunnels in the snow...lately we get a few inches a year at most.
Children's Blizzard book on Border's website
Anyhow, my 2 cents.
/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
The last major flu pandemic was "Spanish Flu" in 1918, 20 - 40 million people died worldwide.
The concern about bird flu is if it mutates enough to start spreading from birds to humans ( which it has somewhat ) and then spreading from humans to other humans, we will have another pandemic.
The human mortality rate of bird flu is over 75 percent at this time.
I don't want to be called an alarmist, but if bird flu starts transmitting from person to person, we could have another pandemic.
This doesn't have anything to do with how well you cook your chicken or turkey before you eat it.
Oh and back on topic, I believe the Earth goes thru climate cycles that we don't really understand, human industrial progress may be having an effect, but I don't think we understand what it is right now either.
I heard an interesting story about an author that did a book on one of the Children's Blizzard of 1888 that killed 500 people in one weekend.
The author talked about the mini ice age that effected the northern great plains in the late 1800s, it was very interesting to hear about this, I had no idea that any of this had occurred.
So weather cycles continue with out us really knowing why at this point, I also recall the harsher winters of the late 70's and early 80's. We got enough snow around Kansas City, Missouri those years to make snow forts and build tunnels in the snow...lately we get a few inches a year at most.
Children's Blizzard book on Border's website
Anyhow, my 2 cents.
/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
CT_Tree_Guy
Platinum Member
Dan -
I always like to make a distinction between "global warming" (a naturally-occurring process) and "accelerated global warming" (the net effect of natural processes combined with man-made factors).
To me, there is no way around the conclusion that man's activities are indeed contributing to a dramatic, and likely very disruptive, acceleration in the rate of global warming. To attempt to "disprove" that by saying that global warming has occurred in the past without any input from man completely misses the point in my opinion.
I do agree with you that a renewed nuclear program is one of man's best hopes for our energy needs for the foreseeable future.
John
I always like to make a distinction between "global warming" (a naturally-occurring process) and "accelerated global warming" (the net effect of natural processes combined with man-made factors).
To me, there is no way around the conclusion that man's activities are indeed contributing to a dramatic, and likely very disruptive, acceleration in the rate of global warming. To attempt to "disprove" that by saying that global warming has occurred in the past without any input from man completely misses the point in my opinion.
I do agree with you that a renewed nuclear program is one of man's best hopes for our energy needs for the foreseeable future.
John
Bird
Rest in Peace
I'm not sure what kind of warming we had, but some kind last month. The newspaper today says January, 2006, was the warmest January ever, breaking an 83 year old record. They say the "average" daily high temperture was 68.3 degrees, while the "normal" is 54. The lack of rain might have had something to do with it. /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif
Chuck52
Veteran Member
As I recall the last time this topic came up, I mentioned that most folks don't have any problem agreeing that man has done a pretty good job polluting just about every major body of water, including the oceans. That said, it then doesn't seem like such a stretch that our activities might be having some effect on the atmosphere, too. I just finished reading Crichton's "State of Fear"....I think that's the title anyway. Not one of his better efforts as fiction, in my opinion, but he makes a pretty strong argument against global warming and man's contribution to the phenomenon in the story. Then, in the appendix, he says he believes in global warming and that man may be contributing, but perhaps not by the mechanism usually presented, i.e. production of "greenhouse gases". Kind of leaves you wondering, but then he's a physician by training, so has no better claim on deep understanding of the issue than any other of us amateurs.
So. What to believe? Darned if I know. On the other hand, if you assume that most of what is proposed to limit our bad effects on the atmosphere also has the direct result of minimizing air pollution, that's a bit easier to get behind.
I support nuclear energy production. It can be done safely, and we can safely store the by products, if folks will agree that "safely" is not an absolute term. Another one of those shades of gray thingies.
Chuck
So. What to believe? Darned if I know. On the other hand, if you assume that most of what is proposed to limit our bad effects on the atmosphere also has the direct result of minimizing air pollution, that's a bit easier to get behind.
I support nuclear energy production. It can be done safely, and we can safely store the by products, if folks will agree that "safely" is not an absolute term. Another one of those shades of gray thingies.
Chuck
riptides
Super Star Member
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( and we can safely store the by products, )</font>
How can one possibly say this, knowing those by-products can remain a hazard for 100,000 + years?
Nuclear energy has its place, but the cost to future generations is an unknown and should not be taken lightly.
-Mike Z. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
How can one possibly say this, knowing those by-products can remain a hazard for 100,000 + years?
Nuclear energy has its place, but the cost to future generations is an unknown and should not be taken lightly.
-Mike Z. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
MossRoad
Super Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 66,213
- Location
- South Bend, Indiana (near)
- Tractor
- Power Trac PT425 2001 Model Year
I think safely means it has to be kept under constant inspection and the storage system has to be maintained.... for the next 100,000 years. Which, given the history of the planet, humans will be long gone by then, wiped out by a viral infection or some bacteria. Bet your money on the cockroach! /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( ""How should I spend my time on this earth?"
A.Gore in an interview on his film at Sundance )</font>
That may very well be the most imponderable question of all...the only thing we know for sure is, it isn't as an elected official.
A.Gore in an interview on his film at Sundance )</font>
That may very well be the most imponderable question of all...the only thing we know for sure is, it isn't as an elected official.
PitbullMidwest
Platinum Member
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( The author talked about the mini ice age that effected the northern great plains in the late 1800s, it was very interesting to hear about this, I had no idea that any of this had occurred. )</font>
Interesting. Davenport Ia's TV weather man said last night that 2006 was the 2nd warmest January (avg local temp) on record at 35 degrees. The warmest was 1880 at 37 degrees.
Interesting. Davenport Ia's TV weather man said last night that 2006 was the 2nd warmest January (avg local temp) on record at 35 degrees. The warmest was 1880 at 37 degrees.
I believe it all works in cycles. Science has proven it over and over from what I have seen. You will always have the groups that have diferent evidence but I believe in Mother Nature... She has adapted, alowing us to live here for quite some time.. This isnt the worst it has ever been, history can prove that. The plagues that occured in years past were spread by dirty conditions, we dont have that here.... Maybe a 3rd world country could suffer from one, but I doubt we will in advanced society(living in homes, bathing, eating, cleaning after ourselves, etc...) I dont belive Chicken Little will get us....Just my opinion...... /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
CT_Tree_Guy
Platinum Member
<font color="blue"> I don't believe Chicken Little will get us </font>
I believe that something will get us, if we continue to act as if nothing we do can harm the planet that sustains us.
On nuclear waste: I don't think we have much choice but to go ahead with the plan to store it at Yucca Mountain in Nevada beginning in 2010. To me, that's a far safer alternative than what we have now; namely, having it stored at almost every nuclear reactor site in the country. Storing it at a relatively safe, stable, centralized location might buy us enough time to find a better long-term solution for dealing with it.
Meeting a significant portion of our energy needs with wood chips and corn? I don't think so. Let's get to work on conventional, hybrid, breeder, and fusion reactors while we still have time. The first step just might be to get money out of politics, so decisions can be made on their merits, and ideally, according to the will of the majority of the people.
John
I believe that something will get us, if we continue to act as if nothing we do can harm the planet that sustains us.
On nuclear waste: I don't think we have much choice but to go ahead with the plan to store it at Yucca Mountain in Nevada beginning in 2010. To me, that's a far safer alternative than what we have now; namely, having it stored at almost every nuclear reactor site in the country. Storing it at a relatively safe, stable, centralized location might buy us enough time to find a better long-term solution for dealing with it.
Meeting a significant portion of our energy needs with wood chips and corn? I don't think so. Let's get to work on conventional, hybrid, breeder, and fusion reactors while we still have time. The first step just might be to get money out of politics, so decisions can be made on their merits, and ideally, according to the will of the majority of the people.
John
John,
I agree that we cant be wilfully(?) wastefull and cause dammage without thinking about the future.....
I'll leave it at that, I just deleted about 6 lines that basicly say I think allot of the wory is overreaction.... But forward progress is a good thing, I too agree with the Nuke's....
I agree that we cant be wilfully(?) wastefull and cause dammage without thinking about the future.....
I'll leave it at that, I just deleted about 6 lines that basicly say I think allot of the wory is overreaction.... But forward progress is a good thing, I too agree with the Nuke's....
CRJCaptain
Silver Member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2003
- Messages
- 133
- Tractor
- Bobcat Toolcat 5600
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( How about the hole in the ozone? It seems to have disappeared. Was its filling due to changes we made? Or was it some other event that we don't know a thing about? )</font>
Well, I don't know where you're getting your information, but the ozone hole at both poles is an annual occurrence.
Some facts: The 2005 hole was one of the largest and deepest on record. The chemistry is well known and documented. CFC's do not occur naturally. They are an anthropogenically engineered chemical designed for their thermodynamic effect in air conditioning systems as well as injection into foam products.
When you consider that the residence time of chlorofluorocarbons in the atmosphere is 80-100 years, even though CFC's have been phased out of many products, the effects of past decade's release will continue on for some time to come.
Want to learn more?
Ozone Hole Data
Well, I don't know where you're getting your information, but the ozone hole at both poles is an annual occurrence.
Some facts: The 2005 hole was one of the largest and deepest on record. The chemistry is well known and documented. CFC's do not occur naturally. They are an anthropogenically engineered chemical designed for their thermodynamic effect in air conditioning systems as well as injection into foam products.
When you consider that the residence time of chlorofluorocarbons in the atmosphere is 80-100 years, even though CFC's have been phased out of many products, the effects of past decade's release will continue on for some time to come.
Want to learn more?
Ozone Hole Data
