Do you believe in global warming?

[brainsmile]

Scientists: Greenland Glaciers Retreating By ALICIA CHANG, AP Science Writer
Thu Dec 8, 9:30 AM ET


SAN FRANCISCO - Two of Greenland's largest glaciers are retreating at an alarming pace, most likely because of climate warming, scientists said Wednesday.

One of the glaciers, Kangerdlugssuaq, is currently moving about 9 miles a year compared to 3 miles a year in 2001, said Gordon Hamilton of the University of Maine's Climate Change Institute.

The other glacier, Helheim, is retreating at about 7 miles a year — up from 4 miles a year during the same period.

"It's quite a staggering rate of increase," Hamilton said at the American Geophysical Union annual meeting.

Glaciers play a major role in discharging water into oceans. Sea levels have swelled globally an estimated 4 inches to 8 inches during the past century due to melting glaciers and polar ice — enough to cause some places to be awash at high tide or during severe storms.

Melting of Greenland ice and calving of icebergs from glaciers is responsible for about 7 percent of the annual rise in global sea level.

Global warming is frequently blamed for retreating glaciers around the world. The rapid retreat of Greenland glaciers suggest that climate change is a factor, Hamilton said.

Meanwhile, one of the fastest melting glaciers in North America has reached the halfway point of disintegration and will continue retreat for another two decades.

Alaska's Columbia Glacier — about the size of Los Angeles — has shrunk 9 miles since the 1980s. It is expected to lose an additional 9 miles in the next 15 to 20 years before the bed of the glacier rises above sea level.

The glacier, which moves about 80 feet a day, currently releases about 2 cubic miles of ice every year into the Prince William Sound on the south coast of Alaska.

Understanding what happens during Alaskan glacier retreat could help explain the phenomenon in Greenland, said Tad Pfeffer, associate director of the University of Colorado's Institute of Arctic and Alpine.

Pfeffer said climate change warming trends do not directly explain the shrinking Columbia Glacier and other tidewater glaciers. Instead, scientists think the retreat is triggered by a slow warming trend that began five centuries ago.

Significant thinning of the Columbia Glacier is thought to be caused by huge chunks of iceberg that break off into the sound as a result of seawater pressure rather than climate change, Pfeffer said.

The glacier, which is up to 3,000 feet thick, has thinned up to 1,300 feet in some places in the last two decades.

[Mommypooh]

hmmm...I don't understand it enough to say one way or the other, I don't think they really know what is going on either.

[InfiniteNothing]

Do you believe in global warming??? Global warming is a fact. The controversy is "Do the activities of man have a significant impact?" and I think science/statistics have demonstrated that to a high degree of certainty.

[OC]

Belief is the wrong word to use, imo. There are plenty of facts to base a "yes" opinion on.

A lot of people think that the changes the earth is undergoing are not due to the actions of mankind, and that mankind does not need to alter his behavior with respect to climate change. That's fine. I don't really care to try to change people's minds about that, because it's not the real issue.

What is the issue is that, regardless of the reason, these changes are happening. We are going to have to deal with the consequences of these changes, whether we caused them to come about or not.

[Airencracken]

Do you believe in global warming??? Global warming is a fact. The controversy is "Do the activities of man have a significant impact?" and I think science/statistics have demonstrated that to a high degree of certainty.

:stupid:

[Grimm]

The chemical makeup of the atmosphere is going to heavily affect global warming. We affect the chemical makeup of the atmosphere. Thus, mankind affects global warming.

[InfiniteNothing]

Yeah, I don't know why people will blame all global warming on natural causes or all on humans. Why can't it be both?

[eSDee]

Yes I believe in global warming.

[ialsohaveadream]

Isn't this kinda like asking "Do you believe in television?"

[ShawnLee]

Yeah, I don't know why people will blame all global warming on natural causes or all on humans. Why can't it be both?I don't think many do. I think the question is which has the greater effect? That being the case, I lean towards the side that it's mostly natural causes with relatively negligible effect from humans.

[InfiniteNothing]

Well, in deciding which holds the greater contributions I'd trust the physicists (http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/2/11/15) not the politicians. Those guys are hella smart.

[Houdini]

So we're getting warmer. Or colder. Or we're stable. I really don't see this as either an issue to worry about or a political hot-button, especially with regards to the US. Plenty of BIG countries have no significant environmental laws, but we're guilting people into driving hybrids, etc.

The earth is really, really big. It has warming and cooling cycles, and ways of shifting temperature like hurricanes. To think that we're the major cause of climate change seems rather grandiose. The last ice age occurred during our (humans') lifetimes, no?

That said, can we do things to change the climate, such as interrupting naturally occurring phenomena like hurricanes? Some research has been done on cooling them, etc. Maybe we can, to prevent destruction like Katrina, but should we if it would throw the balance even farther off?

I dunno. But I doubt if the R12 I had in my old Camaro nor its poor gas mileage did a significant amount of damage to the ozone layer or the absense of so-called "greenhouse gases."

Much of the "icecaps" most prone to melting are floating. Floating ice does not raise the level of water when it melts (try it in a glass if you don't believe me.)

Perhaps we'll see global cooling in our lifetimes, with more hurricanes and volcanic activity occuring. Who knows. As much as I hate hot Gulf Coast summers, I don't worry much about global warming or the significance of our contribution to it.

[Grimm]

Perhaps we'll see global cooling in our lifetimes, with more hurricanes and volcanic activity occuring. Who knows. As much as I hate hot Gulf Coast summers, I don't worry much about global warming or the significance of our contribution to it.
Says the guy who's city got wasted by an effect of global warming...

[Freelance Superhero]

global warming believes in me.

and what's television?

[Merlin]

....I think science/statistics have demonstrated that to a high degree of certainty.
Scientists have but the statistics have not and that is one of the big problems.

[nickel]

it's all about cow flatulence

[Markel]

Says the guy who's city got wasted by an effect of global warming...
Grimm, please prove that hurricane Katrina was the result of global warming.

Thank you.

[Grimm]

Grimm, please prove that hurricane Katrina was the result of global warming.

Thank you.
I call foul. You know as well as I do that Katrina was created normaly by the weather patterns.
Scientists believe that golbal warming increases the intensity of huricans, but does not increase their frequency.

However, the intensity of Katrina was increased by warmer water temperaturs in the gulf. Most likely, without the warmer temperatures the huricane would not have been able to bust the levees and New Orleans would have been fine.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/DyeHard/story?id=1121948&page=1
http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-na-outlook26sep26,1,1270766.column?coll=la-news-columns

[InfiniteNothing]

If you increase the intensity of tropical storms, don't they become hurricanes? Wouldn't that thereby increase the number of hurricanes?

[Grimm]

If you increase the intensity of tropical storms, don't they become hurricanes? Wouldn't that thereby increase the number of hurricanes?
I probably should have said storms, not huricanes. Global warming does not appear to increase the frequency of storms. It does appear that golbal warming increases the intensity and durration of storms though.

[chadlnc]

I call foul. You know as well as I do that Katrina was created normaly by the weather patterns.
Scientists believe that golbal warming increases the intensity of huricans, but does not increase their frequency.

However, the intensity of Katrina was increased by warmer water temperaturs in the gulf. Most likely, without the warmer temperatures the huricane would not have been able to bust the levees and New Orleans would have been fine.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/DyeHard/story?id=1121948&page=1
http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-na-outlook26sep26,1,1270766.column?coll=la-news-columns

SOME scientists believe that golbal warming increases the intensity of huricanes. There is however the though that the intensity changes in cycles:

STORMS VARY WITH CYCLES, EXPERTS SAY

The New York Times, 30 August 2005
By KENNETH CHANG

Because hurricanes form over warm ocean water, it is easy to assume that the recent rise in their number and ferocity is because of global warming.

But that is not the case, scientists say. Instead, the severity of hurricane seasons changes with cycles of temperatures of several decades in the Atlantic Ocean. The recent onslaught "is very much natural," said William M. Gray, a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University who issues forecasts for the hurricane season.

From 1970 to 1994, the Atlantic was relatively quiet, with no more than three major hurricanes in any year and none at all in three of those years. Cooler water in the North Atlantic strengthened wind shear, which tends to tear storms apart before they turn into hurricanes.

In 1995, hurricane patterns reverted to the active mode of the 1950's and 60's. From 1995 to 2003, 32 major hurricanes, with sustained winds of 111 miles per hour or greater, stormed across the Atlantic. It was chance, Dr. Gray said, that only three of them struck the United States at full strength.

Historically, the rate has been 1 in 3.

Then last year, three major hurricanes, half of the six that formed during the season, hit the United States. A fourth, Frances, weakened before striking Florida.

"We were very lucky in that eight-year period, and the luck just ran out," Dr. Gray said.

Global warming may eventually intensify hurricanes somewhat, though different climate models disagree.

In an article this month in the journal Nature, Kerry A. Emanuel, a hurricane expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote that global warming might have already had some effect. The total power dissipated by tropical cyclones in the North Atlantic and North Pacific increased 70 to 80 percent in the last 30 years, he wrote.

But even that seemingly large jump is not what has been pushing the hurricanes of the last two years, Dr. Emanuel said, adding, "What we see in the Atlantic is mostly the natural swing."

Copyright 2005, NYT

[InfiniteNothing]

So we're getting warmer. Or colder. Or we're stable. I really don't see this as either an issue to worry about or a political hot-button, especially with regards to the US. Plenty of BIG countries have no significant environmental laws, but we're guilting people into driving hybrids, etc.

That's because the US is the biggest producer of greenhouse gasses by a long shot (23%, the next closest is China at 14%).
Link (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1co2.xls)

In terms of environmental laws, our laws focus on acid rain, smog, and toxic pollutants not on greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases are a totally different ball game because you can't get rid of CO2 with filters/egr valves/catalytic converters.


The earth is really, really big. It has warming and cooling cycles, and ways of shifting temperature like hurricanes. To think that we're the major cause of climate change seems rather grandiose. The last ice age occurred during our (humans') lifetimes, no?

It's not just a guess, it's fairly well established. Little changes can trigger big changes because of how much power the sun puts out.


That said, can we do things to change the climate, such as interrupting naturally occurring phenomena like hurricanes? Some research has been done on cooling them, etc. Maybe we can, to prevent destruction like Katrina, but should we if it would throw the balance even farther off?

I'm interested. It sounds contrary to the second law of thermo.


I dunno. But I doubt if the R12 I had in my old Camaro nor its poor gas mileage did a significant amount of damage to the ozone layer or the absence of so-called "greenhouse gases."

Well, not just you. It's everyone else on the road too. That's the same logic as "I shouldn't vote because it won't change anything". Cars account for about a 1/3 of societies GHG emissions, if you add in the fuel a power plant has to burn for home use (heating, cooling, electronics) you get about 80% of all emissions.link (http://www.edison.com/community/greenhouse.asp)


Much of the "icecaps" most prone to melting are floating. Floating ice does not raise the level of water when it melts (try it in a glass if you don't believe me.)

What about the ones that aren't floating :). If Antarctica melted the ocean would rise about 200 feet. link (http://science.howstuffworks.com/question473.htm)I think people mention ice caps melting so much not because of the ocean rising but the ensuing climate change. The oceans basically OWN the weather. The fresh water could change the Atlantic so much that great Britain and Ireland freeze off. Other "Day after tomorrow" scenarios are also possible.


Perhaps we'll see global cooling in our lifetimes, with more hurricanes and volcanic activity occurring. Who knows. As much as I hate hot Gulf Coast summers, I don't worry much about global warming or the significance of our contribution to it.
What about our kids? Their kids?


SOME scientists believe that golbal warming increases the intensity of huricanes. There is however the though that the intensity changes in cycles:

STORMS VARY WITH CYCLES, EXPERTS SAY

The New York Times, 30 August 2005
By KENNETH CHANG

Because hurricanes form over warm ocean water, it is easy to assume that the recent rise in their number and ferocity is because of global warming.

But that is not the case, scientists say. Instead, the severity of hurricane seasons changes with cycles of temperatures of several decades in the Atlantic Ocean. The recent onslaught "is very much natural," said William M. Gray, a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University who issues forecasts for the hurricane season.

From 1970 to 1994, the Atlantic was relatively quiet, with no more than three major hurricanes in any year and none at all in three of those years. Cooler water in the North Atlantic strengthened wind shear, which tends to tear storms apart before they turn into hurricanes.

In 1995, hurricane patterns reverted to the active mode of the 1950's and 60's. From 1995 to 2003, 32 major hurricanes, with sustained winds of 111 miles per hour or greater, stormed across the Atlantic. It was chance, Dr. Gray said, that only three of them struck the United States at full strength.

Historically, the rate has been 1 in 3.

Then last year, three major hurricanes, half of the six that formed during the season, hit the United States. A fourth, Frances, weakened before striking Florida.

"We were very lucky in that eight-year period, and the luck just ran out," Dr. Gray said.

Global warming may eventually intensify hurricanes somewhat, though different climate models disagree.

In an article this month in the journal Nature, Kerry A. Emanuel, a hurricane expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote that global warming might have already had some effect. The total power dissipated by tropical cyclones in the North Atlantic and North Pacific increased 70 to 80 percent in the last 30 years, he wrote.

But even that seemingly large jump is not what has been pushing the hurricanes of the last two years, Dr. Emanuel said, adding, "What we see in the Atlantic is mostly the natural swing."

Copyright 2005, NYT

No one is saying that it doesn't change with cycles... as well.

[Markel]

I call foul.
Says the same person who said:

Says the guy who's city got wasted by an effect of global warming...
I was really just wanting to point out that your reply was rather pointed and less than fully factual (i.e., as the material posted by chadlnc which relates the cyclical nature of hurricanes).

[InfiniteNothing]

Again, cycles being a factor does not preclude global warming from also being a factor.

[Markel]

Again, cycles being a factor does not preclude global warming from also being a factor.
I would venture that killer hurricanes have been around longer than "global warming". ;)

[Grimm]

Says the same person who said:
My comment was straight forward. You came at me sideways. You asked me to defend a point of view that I don't hold.

[InfiniteNothing]

I would venture that killer hurricanes have been around longer than "global warming". ;)
Argumentum ad antiquitatem

[Markel]

My comment was straight forward. You came at me sideways. You asked me to defend a point of view that I don't hold.
Grimm, sorry for that - it wasn't my intention.

[cheapie]

i think everyone that's interested in global warming should read Michael Crichton's State of Fear

it tells a great story while imparting a ton of information about both sides of the argument.

[Merlin]

Most of Crichton's work are pretty well researched.

[LPMiller]

and poorly written, because he's overrated. But yeah, good research. I think I have only ever liked one of his books - Rising Sun.

[welfareloser]

I don't think many do. I think the question is which has the greater effect? That being the case, I lean towards the side that it's mostly natural causes with relatively negligible effect from humans.

why? that's not the way 99% of scientists in the relevant fields lean. the only place to find a concentration of people who lean thataway is in a certain political party...

the EPA: humans have a huge effect.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/Climate.html

in case you think that's a liberal tool, let's step outside this country... the australian academy of sciences: humans have a definitely non-negligible effect.

http://www.science.org.au/nova/081/081key.htm

here's a good sumary of how, yes, big planet-sized stuff *does* have a huge effect on the earth's temp... and, surprise, all the big things that affect the temp are currently aligned such that they are having COOLING effects (ie, we're warming up the earth IN SPITE OF the monstrous planet-sized air conditioners aligned against us...)

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/ (this is a magazine that basically summarizes the reports of research published in academic journals, in laymen's terms.)

etc. grab the last three years' worth of "Science" magazine. there have been dozens of articles on global warming... there was exactly *one* article on the subject that didn't utterly condemn the human race as the prime cause of the massive warming of the last 20-30 years.

we know what the climate has done for the last millions of years. it ain't never warmed this fast. we're guilty. even cow flatulence... there's only one reason why we got so many durned cows on this planet right now.

[cheapie]

we know what the climate has done for the last millions of years. it ain't never warmed this fast. we're guilty. even cow flatulence... there's only one reason why we got so many durned cows on this planet right now.


are you really going to stand behind this statement? you're willing to say that in the last million years the planet has never warmed more than a degree over any 100 years? :heh:

[welfareloser]

why would i stand by the statement you just made that i didn't make? :rolleyes:

the last 20-30 years are unprecedented. if you're actually interested, i will send you the article #s to look up... the stuff ain't online for free.

[cheapie]

don't roll your eyes at me girlfriend. i took the very first sentence of the first reference you put in your post.

when you said this fast i assumed you were talking about the numbers cited in your references since you didn't mention anything in your post.

[Houdini]

Says the guy who's city got wasted by an effect of global warming...

So I'm supposed to go on some BS crusade against global warming b/c my city was affected by a naturally occurring event?

[Houdini]

I'm interested. It sounds contrary to the second law of thermo.

I've heard ideas such as using slush powder (found in diapers/depends) that hold huge amounts of water relative to their size, to diminish the water content of hurricanes. I've heard of several other, likely harebrained ideas, to weaken a storm that feeds off warm gulf water. Nothing concrete, but if I ever come up with a good idea, I'll be sure to make lots of $$.



What about the ones that aren't floating :). If Antarctica melted the ocean would rise about 200 feet. link (http://science.howstuffworks.com/question473.htm)

That same article states that Antarctica, well, can't melt, as it's supercold there (-37C). A degree or 10 doesn't matter. You'd have to have one helluva global warming for that to occur. It won't.

[Grimm]

So I'm supposed to go on some BS crusade against global warming b/c my city was affected by a naturally occurring event?
No, you are supposed to go on a crusade against global warming because the increased water temp in the gulf caused by global warming strengthened the huricane enough that it was able to break the levees and trash your city.

[Grimm]

That same article states that Antarctica, well, can't melt, as it's supercold there (-37C). A degree or 10 doesn't matter. You'd have to have one helluva global warming for that to occur. It won't.
While it may be -37C at the pole, it is closer to 0C in many of the costal regions.
The big threat of global warming is that the salinity of our oceans will change when the glaciers melt. That will change the thermal dymamics of the oceans and the whole planet. The climate change that would result could be dramatic. OR it could be fairly mild. I don't want to find out though.

[ramazank2]

This image shows the earth's natural variability in both CO2 and temperature for the past 400000+ years and also that temperature is related to CO2 concentrations:
http://www.androidworld.com/Vostok_Ice_Core.jpg

The maximum CO2 concentration reached during this period was 300 ppm.

This image shows the CO2 rise in the past 50 years:

http://www.androidworld.com/Mauna_Loa.jpg

We are currently at the highest CO2 concentrations and it is increasing very fast. Current predictions sayby 2100 the CO2 concetrations will be between 550 and 1200 ppm which will be a temperature change of 2 to 7 degrees.

[Markel]

We are currently at the highest CO2 concentrations and it is increasing very fast. Current predictions sayby 2100 the CO2 concetrations will be between 550 and 1200 ppm which will be a temperature change of 2 to 7 degrees.
So, what did men do 135,000 years ago that caused a comparable rate of increase?

[nickel]

No, you are supposed to go on a crusade against global warming because the increased water temp in the gulf caused by global warming strengthened the huricane enough that it was able to break the levees and trash your city.
so does that mean we will be having increased water temps and subsequent powerful hurricanes caused by global warming from here on out? if not, does global warming wane or are we just experiencing a weather cycle that will end?

[LegendKiller]

So, what did men do 135,000 years ago that caused a comparable rate of increase?



Massive flatulence.

[LPMiller]

I've heard ideas such as using slush powder (found in diapers/depends) that hold huge amounts of water relative to their size, to diminish the water content of hurricanes. I've heard of several other, likely harebrained ideas, to weaken a storm that feeds off warm gulf water. Nothing concrete, but if I ever come up with a good idea, I'll be sure to make lots of $$.



That same article states that Antarctica, well, can't melt, as it's supercold there (-37C). A degree or 10 doesn't matter. You'd have to have one helluva global warming for that to occur. It won't.

And at one time, Antartica was covered in trees. Things can change.

The greatest die off in the history of the planet was likely caused by rapid warming. Bubbles of trapped methane in the ocean rose rapidly, literally suffercating life as it helped increase temps even more. This caused a mass die off on what was then Antartica, killing all life. As the continent moved apart, antartica froze up. Things can change.

The thing is, things can change regardless of whether we do anything or not. It's a pretty complicated system and it's always in flux. And while I don't agree you can postulate 100 years from now based on 30 years of changes (we need to operate on geological ages, like the planet does), and while I would agree that you cannot automatically point the finger at just man, I don't think it really matters in the end. None of that means we shouldn't try to have a less of an impact, or that we shouldn't be prepared for environmental changes based on the current pattern of warming. Who is responsible is irrelevent when it's happening, naturally or not.

The problem is that with all the data we have, it's not good enough and won't be, because we can't take these kinds of measurements 100 years ago. Any data outside modern times is guesswork. Good guesses maybe, but still guesswork. For all we know, this is a minor warmup before a long overdue ice age.

But again, while I laugh at the gloom and doomers, that doesn't mean you just ignore things, or don't try to mitigate the problem. Seems to me, arguing about who is at fault or if it is natural doesn't really solve anything.

It does seem to me though that since Antartica was at one time, fertile and flush with life, I dunno that it can't melt. It just might have to move first :)

[LegendKiller]

so does that mean we will be having increased water temps and subsequent powerful hurricanes caused by global warming from here on out? if not, does global warming wane or are we just experiencing a weather cycle that will end?

According to all estimates we will experience a period of higher temps, more active weather patterns, and higher water temps.

Many scientists can validate that we are still coming out of a mini ice age, weather patterns in England validate this, along with other areas.

The hurricane cycle will continue to go up, as it has done in the past.

Pollution as an absolute number means nothing. Pollution per-capita, per gdp, and other relative measurements mean more.

[ialsohaveadream]

Massive flatulence.
The great Chili Cook-off of 130,995 B.C.

[Grimm]

Ok, I changed my mind I don't beleive in global warming. Not because I don't think man has contributed to a change in the enviornment, but becaus I have decided that the world is flat and not a globe.
As a flat earther there is no globe and therefor no Golbal Warming.

See, it's all beter now and everything is safe.

[InfiniteNothing]

So, what did men do 135,000 years ago that caused a comparable rate of increase?
Comparable how? I think you're confusing time scales. That's a period of 15000 years, not 100 or 40. Anyhow, it's not so important how fast things are getting warm now but rather what the best fit explanation of how the planet is warming (natural vs man). See my physics link like 40 posts up.

[Houdini]

No, you are supposed to go on a crusade against global warming because the increased water temp in the gulf caused by global warming strengthened the huricane enough that it was able to break the levees and trash your city.

The strength of the hurricane had little to do with its effects on New Orleans. New Orleans wasn't hit with anything beyone CAT2 winds. It was the dredged canals that channeled waters from the MS River Gulf Outlet into Lake Ponchartrain that broke the levees. The MS Gulf Coast took the brunt of the storm.

The Gulf waters are always warmer late in the summer. Hurricanes have always fed on warm water. The region has been hit hard before by even stronger hurricanes. I don't think one hurricane that, due to a variety of circumstances, was catastrophic, though not on the scale we dreaded, is indicitive of any affect of global warming.

[sourdough]

I definitely believe in global warming. Heck, my local environment can get up to 350 degrees!

[zippyjuan]

Yes, there have been natural cycles in the levels of CO2 and temperature as determined by examining things like the Vostock cores and other historical records. The levels observed today are significantly higher than those historical levels- more that twice the higest measured. Temperature- wise, we appear to be at or near what would in the past have been a historical peak. Will this excess CO2 push us to higher temperatures? We will not know for sure until we get there- but then it is too late to cut back. We have that chance now- if it is not already too late. WE do not know what caused the changes in CO2 in the past. Maybe the cause/ effect was that changing temperatures caused the swing in CO2 in the past, rather than the CO2 causing the temperature change. That cannot be ruled out. What we do know for certain is that we have hugely higher CO2 levels compared to historical levels and that the cause of this is man burning fuels and that in the past, CO2 levels have roughly coresponded to temperature levels. I prefer to err on the side of trying to reduce emissions now. These trends are historical- they happen over very long periods of time and trying to blame specific events like a particular hurricane on them are diffuclt connections to make. Only with a long viewpoint could it make sense and be connected to the larger pattern given annual variations of weather.

[Yossarian]

Ok, I changed my mind I don't beleive in global warming. Not because I don't think man has contributed to a change in the enviornment, but becaus I have decided that the world is flat and not a globe.
As a flat earther there is no globe and therefor no Golbal Warming.

See, it's all beter now and everything is safe.

i'm going to petition to have you're evil license removed. only a goody goody would believe blindly what their church was telling them :disa:

[InfiniteNothing]

Anyone know what the minimum eligibly for a golden shovel award is?

[Houdini]

Anyone know what the minimum eligibly for a golden shovel award is?

Nah...it was linked from a more current post (by you, if I remember), and when I read it again and Grimm's provoking responses, I got annoyed and wanted to clear up conjecture with facts.

[Grimm]

i'm going to petition to have you're evil license removed. only a goody goody would believe blindly what their church was telling them :disa:
My church? They all believe that silly "Round Earth Theory. But I'll have the last laugh when they fall off the edge!


Nah...it was linked from a more current post (by you, if I remember), and when I read it again and Grimm's provoking responses, I got annoyed and wanted to clear up conjecture with facts.
Whatever. We apparently have a different definition of the words "conjecture" and "fact".

[Houdini]

Whatever. We apparently have a different definition of the words "conjecture" and "fact".

Whatever? What an arrogant dismissal. If your expertise exceeds mine, I'll readily admit that. But to argue for the futile sake of proving you're right, you show no respect and prove your definitions above may not be as accurate as you proclaim.

Hey, you took a slam at my intellect by my decision to live here, and have ignored the facts I have presented re: why the N.O. events happened. Have you been to N.O.? Have you seen the levees? Have you spoken to anyone in charge of the levees, or even the mayor? Do you know the topography of the region and the studies by those in charge locally of finding out what went wrong? I expect not. I have done all of those things. So please, back off. What started as a semi-personal attack has digressed into blatant self-imposed ignorance on your part about what happened here. I've contributed much to help those understand the problem with the city, from the government to the problems that led to the destruction of a relatively small part of the city.

[LPMiller]

^
^
^

I'm with stupid

[Houdini]

^
^
^

I'm with stupid

Thanks. Some here can't handle respectful debate and repeatedly deny facts as presented by those who have deep inside information just to argue and flame-bait.

[nickel]

Thanks. Some here can't handle respectful debate and repeatedly deny facts as presented by those who have deep inside information just to argue and flame-bait.
ya think? :P

anyways, i still maintain it's all about cow flatulence. that's my story and i'm stinkin to it.

[brainsmile]

farts?

[nickel]

farts?
farts and burps



Cow flatulence
It has been estimated that 9 to 12% of the energy that a cow consumes is turned to methane that is released either through flatulence or burping (Radford, 2001). A huge number of factors affect methane emission, including diet, barn conditions and whether the cow is lactating, but an average cow in a barn produce 542 liters of methane a day, and 600 liters when out in a field (Adam, 2000).

These estimates were made using a trace gas (sulphur hexofluoride) that was released at known points within a barn containing 90 cattle. Levels of this trace gas and CO2 are then measured 30 metres downwind of the shed and thus they can estimate how much CO2 is released per cow per day. All this methane can add up to a significant amount. Australia's 140 million sheep and cattle are estimated to produce one seventh of the nation's total greenhouse gas emissions, whilst America's 100 million cattle also are major contributors (Major, 2000).

http://rucus.ru.ac.za/~wolfman/Essays/Cow.html

[Houdini]

farts and burps


http://rucus.ru.ac.za/~wolfman/Essays/Cow.html

Were they measuring methane (CH4) or CO2? The article seems kinda weird on that.

[nickel]

Were they measuring methane (CH4) or CO2? The article seems kinda weird on that.
methane.

from "The Straight Dope"

Details aside, animal methane does present a definite threat to the biota. It's believed 18 percent of the greenhouse effect is caused by methane, putting it second on the list of offending gases behind carbon dioxide. Methane breaks down in the atmosphere to form carbon dioxide, ozone, and water, all of which absorb heat. The temperature of the atmosphere rises, the ice caps melt, and next thing you know you're pumping the Atlantic Ocean out of your basement.
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a4_176.html

[Houdini]

methane.

from "The Straight Dope"

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a4_176.html

Right, but the article talks about how they went about measuring CO2, and then says "all this methane..." etc. CO2 =/= CH4. :shrug:

[InfiniteNothing]

As she was hinting, methane becomes CO2 in the atmosphere. I think they went about indirectly measuring CO2. If they didn't then they were probably measuring just what the cows exhaled. The article was a bit fast and lose about using them interchangebly. Though, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Nickle really blames it on the cows. I took it as a joke.

[InfiniteNothing]

ya think? :P

anyways, i still maintain it's all about cow flatulence. that's my story and i'm stinkin to it.
I guess we should all go out and start eating more beef before they cook us alive with their gas.