Tex wrote ........... "as we all know, those who pay for research, get the research results they want, (or they stop paying)."
That's exactly why I don't especially trust all those "reports" and "opinions" that are coming at us from all directions these days.
Love, Shirley
Movie Recommendation (and a Great Debate on Global Warming)
Moderators: Rosie, Stanz, Jean, CAMary, moremuscle, JFR, Dee, xet, Peggy, Matthew, Gabes-Apg, grannyh, Gloria, Mars, starfire, Polly, Joefnh
Oh, it looks like things are OK. Must have been my computer skills!
I'll have to post more later - running out of time.
I'd like to address one issue, though. The climate scientists are not enjoying an unfettered, lucrative existence. It's quite the opposite. They have been harassed, silenced and had their research results "altered" by their government funding agencies. I would be happy to provide specific documentation if anyone is interested.
I'm certain this has happened in many previous administrations, but it has never caused the degree of outrage that has occurred recently. In June of 2004 you may recall that no less than 48 Nobel Prize-winning scientists signed a petition expressing outrage at the current Administration's distortion of the scientific facts. The petition further stated that they believed the earth's future was being put in danger as a result.
Tex, I really enjoy mentally sparring with you. You can tell this is an issue I really care about. Not because of the movie. As a student in the Environmental Science Program, at the Johns Hopkins U., I have had the opportunity to read, hear about and debate much of the research related to this issue. I want you and Shirley to know that the people in this field I have met are among the most altruistic, unassuming, honest (and yes, poor!) I have ever met. They are our truth-seekers.
Love,
Polly
I'll have to post more later - running out of time.
I'd like to address one issue, though. The climate scientists are not enjoying an unfettered, lucrative existence. It's quite the opposite. They have been harassed, silenced and had their research results "altered" by their government funding agencies. I would be happy to provide specific documentation if anyone is interested.
I'm certain this has happened in many previous administrations, but it has never caused the degree of outrage that has occurred recently. In June of 2004 you may recall that no less than 48 Nobel Prize-winning scientists signed a petition expressing outrage at the current Administration's distortion of the scientific facts. The petition further stated that they believed the earth's future was being put in danger as a result.
Tex, I really enjoy mentally sparring with you. You can tell this is an issue I really care about. Not because of the movie. As a student in the Environmental Science Program, at the Johns Hopkins U., I have had the opportunity to read, hear about and debate much of the research related to this issue. I want you and Shirley to know that the people in this field I have met are among the most altruistic, unassuming, honest (and yes, poor!) I have ever met. They are our truth-seekers.
Love,
Polly
Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused.
Polly, I have no doubt that a lot of scientists, etc. are dedicated truth seekers and are very sincere in their beliefs. I don't question the fact of global warming. I just question the significance of it all and what impact our human intervention can have.
Love, Shirley
Love, Shirley
When the eagles are silent, the parrots begin to jabber"
-- Winston Churchill
-- Winston Churchill
-
kate_ce1995
- Rockhopper Penguin
- Posts: 1321
- Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 5:53 pm
- Location: Vermont
I also saw a discovery channel thing or something that said as the ice caps melt, the northern waters warm which in turn slows down the convection current that is the jet stream. When this happens, the arctic areas don't get the benefit of the warm equatoral waters moving in the gulf stream and the result is drifting back into more of an ice age era.
Is it true, is it made up? I don't know, but its food for thought.
Katy
PS: If you like sort of sci-fi reading Millenium Man (I think thats the name) by McCollough (same author as gone with the wind I think) is admittedly a slightly bizzare story, but takes place as the earth goes into an ice age. I read it in college (for fun) and am fuzzy on the details but can double check the name and author whne I get home if anyone is interested.
Is it true, is it made up? I don't know, but its food for thought.
Katy
PS: If you like sort of sci-fi reading Millenium Man (I think thats the name) by McCollough (same author as gone with the wind I think) is admittedly a slightly bizzare story, but takes place as the earth goes into an ice age. I read it in college (for fun) and am fuzzy on the details but can double check the name and author whne I get home if anyone is interested.
Hi Polly,
Well, my remark about those who pay for research getting the research results they want, works for both sides of the issue, obviously.
As far as corrupt governments are concerned, from what I can discover, nothing has significantly changed since our government was originally founded, except that the media is more inclined to reveal the innermost secrets of our top level officials these days. Just a couple of decades back, they were much more discreet about the personal lives of the people in those offices, and their actions and discussions that were done behind closed doors, (LBJ, and JFK, for example)
Governments have always rewritten history and other data in their favor. (As an early example, look at the way that the attempted extermination of the native American tribes was written up as the "Indian Wars"). A lot of people believe that the American buffalo, (bison), were brought to the brink of extinction, by greedy market hunters, (because that's the way the history books were written), when in fact, the govenment not only encouraged, but actually subsidized the buffalo hunters, as part of their plan to starve the Indians into surrendering, and submitting to live the rest of their lives on reservations, located on what was then, the most worthless land in this country. Note that this occured years after the Emancipation Proclamation was signed. Is there any irony here?
Due to the extremely liberal leanings of the media in general, though, Republican administrations tend to get crucified for trying to do what they honestly believe is right, while Democratic presidents often are more likely to be investigated for having the morals of an alley cat, yet they somehow wind up becoming some sort of folk hero, because of it. Politics has nothing to do with logic, and everything to do with ambition.
I think Shirley said it quite succently--there's no doubt that we are in a warming trend, that's obvious from the long-term charts. So whats all the hullabaloo about? As far as I can tell, this is a perfectly normal, and expected way for this part of the cycle to proceed. Why are so many people scared to death of "global warming", when it's clearly a natural phenomenon, that has been occuring in cycles, since the beginning of time?
The "alarmists" are continually seeking ways to demonstrate that this is somehow different from all the other cycles. Well, if you look at history, you will see that virtually any period you select, during those previous cycles, had phenonena that were different from any other cycle. That's just nature for you. It never runs out of possible permutations. The possibilities are endless. There will always be new record high temps, new record low temps, new record this, and new record that. That's just the nature of nature.
I do recognize that this is an important issue to you. It's an important issue to all of us. I'm just concerned about the way that people are fervently searching for significance, in so many places where significance does not actually exist.
One thing is certain. The climate, the "environment", and the existence of the various species that populate this planet, will always be in a continuous state of change, due to the various cycles that are superimposed on it. If mankind ever manages to actually figure out what is really happening, then the very next day the planet will probably be hit by an asteroid, and everything will be reset, and any life form that survives, will start over. Quite frankly, I'm much more concerned about the risk of chaotic events such as this, than I am about "global warming".
Do you believe in the "chaos theory"? I do.
Love,
Wayne
Well, my remark about those who pay for research getting the research results they want, works for both sides of the issue, obviously.
As far as corrupt governments are concerned, from what I can discover, nothing has significantly changed since our government was originally founded, except that the media is more inclined to reveal the innermost secrets of our top level officials these days. Just a couple of decades back, they were much more discreet about the personal lives of the people in those offices, and their actions and discussions that were done behind closed doors, (LBJ, and JFK, for example)
Governments have always rewritten history and other data in their favor. (As an early example, look at the way that the attempted extermination of the native American tribes was written up as the "Indian Wars"). A lot of people believe that the American buffalo, (bison), were brought to the brink of extinction, by greedy market hunters, (because that's the way the history books were written), when in fact, the govenment not only encouraged, but actually subsidized the buffalo hunters, as part of their plan to starve the Indians into surrendering, and submitting to live the rest of their lives on reservations, located on what was then, the most worthless land in this country. Note that this occured years after the Emancipation Proclamation was signed. Is there any irony here?
Due to the extremely liberal leanings of the media in general, though, Republican administrations tend to get crucified for trying to do what they honestly believe is right, while Democratic presidents often are more likely to be investigated for having the morals of an alley cat, yet they somehow wind up becoming some sort of folk hero, because of it. Politics has nothing to do with logic, and everything to do with ambition.
I think Shirley said it quite succently--there's no doubt that we are in a warming trend, that's obvious from the long-term charts. So whats all the hullabaloo about? As far as I can tell, this is a perfectly normal, and expected way for this part of the cycle to proceed. Why are so many people scared to death of "global warming", when it's clearly a natural phenomenon, that has been occuring in cycles, since the beginning of time?
The "alarmists" are continually seeking ways to demonstrate that this is somehow different from all the other cycles. Well, if you look at history, you will see that virtually any period you select, during those previous cycles, had phenonena that were different from any other cycle. That's just nature for you. It never runs out of possible permutations. The possibilities are endless. There will always be new record high temps, new record low temps, new record this, and new record that. That's just the nature of nature.
I do recognize that this is an important issue to you. It's an important issue to all of us. I'm just concerned about the way that people are fervently searching for significance, in so many places where significance does not actually exist.
One thing is certain. The climate, the "environment", and the existence of the various species that populate this planet, will always be in a continuous state of change, due to the various cycles that are superimposed on it. If mankind ever manages to actually figure out what is really happening, then the very next day the planet will probably be hit by an asteroid, and everything will be reset, and any life form that survives, will start over. Quite frankly, I'm much more concerned about the risk of chaotic events such as this, than I am about "global warming".
Do you believe in the "chaos theory"? I do.
Love,
Wayne
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
Good Morning!
Shirley, you go right to the heart of the issue by wondering about the significance of global warming and what impact our actions can have. I'll very briefly give you my perspective.
With regard to significance, the following have been predicted as a result of global warming AND ARE ALREADY OCCURRING:
* an increase in the frequency and severity of weather events, like flooding, hurricanes, tornados, drought. The number of category #4 and #5 hurricanes has almost doubled in 3 decades. And the insurance industry is well aware that the flooding events worldwide continue to rise in a linear fashion. In many areas they no longer offer flood insurance, or if they do, it costs an arm and a leg.
* Melting of glaciers and the polar ice caps (40% of the arctic ice has melted away in just a few decades)
* Almost 300 species of plants and animals have been migrating toward the poles in the past few decades because they need cooler locations to thrive.
* New tropical diseases are developing (over 25 in the past few decades) and old ones are spreading into areas where it used to be too cold for them to thrive. Example - West Nile virus, a tropical virus that entered the U.S. in 1999 and had spread across the country within 2 years. Malaria has now spread to higher altitudes. This is of MAJOR significance because viruses and bacteria are much less threatening to humans in areas where there are colder winters, colder nights, and stable weather patterns.
* Massive loss of coral reefs occurred in 2005 (the hottest year on record). In the second hottest year (1999), 16% of the world's coral reefs were lost.
Wayne, I know you believe that global warming and all of the associated changes are part of a natural cycle. However, it concerns me that all of these dramatic changes (that are perhaps only the tip of the iceberg) have ocurred in about 3 DECADES. This is an extremely short period of time - usually in the earth's past, it took milennia for changes like these to occur. These changes correlate well with the rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere - in 1975 the avg level was about 330 parts per million and by 2005 it was 380 parts per million.
And, isn't it amazing that when scientists do ice core tests in the Anarctic, they find that at no point in the past 650,000 years did the CO2 levels in the earth's atmosphere go above 300 parts per million? That is, not until the beginning of the industrial revolution.....and it has been climbing since.
I'm outta time - will have to come back later with the GOOD news.....i.e.. what we can do about all of this (impact).
Love,
Polly
Shirley, you go right to the heart of the issue by wondering about the significance of global warming and what impact our actions can have. I'll very briefly give you my perspective.
With regard to significance, the following have been predicted as a result of global warming AND ARE ALREADY OCCURRING:
* an increase in the frequency and severity of weather events, like flooding, hurricanes, tornados, drought. The number of category #4 and #5 hurricanes has almost doubled in 3 decades. And the insurance industry is well aware that the flooding events worldwide continue to rise in a linear fashion. In many areas they no longer offer flood insurance, or if they do, it costs an arm and a leg.
* Melting of glaciers and the polar ice caps (40% of the arctic ice has melted away in just a few decades)
* Almost 300 species of plants and animals have been migrating toward the poles in the past few decades because they need cooler locations to thrive.
* New tropical diseases are developing (over 25 in the past few decades) and old ones are spreading into areas where it used to be too cold for them to thrive. Example - West Nile virus, a tropical virus that entered the U.S. in 1999 and had spread across the country within 2 years. Malaria has now spread to higher altitudes. This is of MAJOR significance because viruses and bacteria are much less threatening to humans in areas where there are colder winters, colder nights, and stable weather patterns.
* Massive loss of coral reefs occurred in 2005 (the hottest year on record). In the second hottest year (1999), 16% of the world's coral reefs were lost.
Wayne, I know you believe that global warming and all of the associated changes are part of a natural cycle. However, it concerns me that all of these dramatic changes (that are perhaps only the tip of the iceberg) have ocurred in about 3 DECADES. This is an extremely short period of time - usually in the earth's past, it took milennia for changes like these to occur. These changes correlate well with the rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere - in 1975 the avg level was about 330 parts per million and by 2005 it was 380 parts per million.
And, isn't it amazing that when scientists do ice core tests in the Anarctic, they find that at no point in the past 650,000 years did the CO2 levels in the earth's atmosphere go above 300 parts per million? That is, not until the beginning of the industrial revolution.....and it has been climbing since.
I'm outta time - will have to come back later with the GOOD news.....i.e.. what we can do about all of this (impact).
Love,
Polly
Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused.
Very interesting. I have been trying to keep an open mind about this subject since it came up years ago. Here are some of my thoughts:
I'm not sure that changes in 30 years are statistically significant.
With CO2 levels being over 25% higher than in the past 650,000 years I would expect a much more dramatic climatic effect. What level to we have to reach for immediate dire results?
I was disturbed when Al Gore took up this cause because he lacks credibility in my book, i.e., he makes me want to deny there is any global warming.
Whether global warming is real or not, I think it's prudent for us to cut CO2 emissions. It sure won't hurt anything.
Plants take CO2 from the atmosphere and expel oxygen. I think the single easiest thing that we can all do is let our lawns grow. Can you imagine how much carbon dioxide would be consumed if every lawn was just one inch longer? Not to mention the emission reduction from not using our lawn mowers. And, less work for all of us.
Love, Jean
I'm not sure that changes in 30 years are statistically significant.
With CO2 levels being over 25% higher than in the past 650,000 years I would expect a much more dramatic climatic effect. What level to we have to reach for immediate dire results?
I was disturbed when Al Gore took up this cause because he lacks credibility in my book, i.e., he makes me want to deny there is any global warming.
Whether global warming is real or not, I think it's prudent for us to cut CO2 emissions. It sure won't hurt anything.
Plants take CO2 from the atmosphere and expel oxygen. I think the single easiest thing that we can all do is let our lawns grow. Can you imagine how much carbon dioxide would be consumed if every lawn was just one inch longer? Not to mention the emission reduction from not using our lawn mowers. And, less work for all of us.
Love, Jean
Be kind to everyone, because you never know what battles they are fighting.
Polly,
All those events and issues that you noted as being predicted and already coming true, are no-brainers--they happen in virtually every cycle, during the warming part. A tenth-grade science class student could make a lot of those predictions with similar accuracy, simply by referring to long-term charts of the ice age events during the last million years. It's inevitable, so it's very easy to predict.
Jean, what you say is correct. 30 years out of a 100,000 year cycle, is significant only in the fourth decimal place, (it's 0.0003). Also, CO2 is a very minor part of our atmosphere. Why pick CO2 levels? (Probably because that's the most significant change they can find, and it's significant only in terms of percentages, because it's such a minor part of our atmosphere in the first place).
Also, you're right about the lawns. Countless acres on this planet have been converted from vegetation to asphalt and houses. This probably has some affect on the CO2 levels, and probably could be altered to reverse some of the effect, but I doubt that it would make dramatic changes, since most of the CO2 comes from oceans and similar natural causes.
Both temperatures and CO2 levels have been steadily increasing for 18,000 years, (as demonstrated by ice core data). Why do "global warming promoters" ignore those 18,000 years of data, and insist that recent increases in atmospheric CO2 are unnatural and are the result of only 200 years or so of human pollution? (Do they ignore it because they have their own agenda?)
2005 may have been the hottest year on record, but that's simply because records have only been kept in most areas for roughly 100 years. There are a few temerature records from western Europe, dating from the late 17th century, but it was not common for most regions to record temperatures until roughly a hundred years ago. Therefore, you are comparing current temperature record highs, with a database only about a hundred years old, (this amounts to only one tenth of one percent of the typical long-term cycle).
The hottest period in recent human history is known as the Holocene Maximum, and is a good example of why current short-term temperature cycles and "record highs" should be taken with a grain of salt. This period occurred approximately 9,000 to 5,000 years in the past, thousands of years before the industrial revolution, and temperatures averaged well above current levels, especially at the polar caps. Temperatures then declined for a couple thousand years, and then began to rise again.
The fact that periods of earth warming and cooling occur in cycles is well understood, and so is the fact that small-scale cycles of about 40 years exist within larger-scale cycles of 400 years, which in turn exist inside still larger scale cycles of 20,000 years, which exist inside cycles of 100,000 years, and so on. When all these cycles converge, it gets hot, (or cold, depending on which part of the cycle the earth is in).
It's not rocket science, and there's nothing ominous about it, nor is there any reason to feel guilty about it. It just happens--always has, and always will.
Love,
Wayne
All those events and issues that you noted as being predicted and already coming true, are no-brainers--they happen in virtually every cycle, during the warming part. A tenth-grade science class student could make a lot of those predictions with similar accuracy, simply by referring to long-term charts of the ice age events during the last million years. It's inevitable, so it's very easy to predict.
Jean, what you say is correct. 30 years out of a 100,000 year cycle, is significant only in the fourth decimal place, (it's 0.0003). Also, CO2 is a very minor part of our atmosphere. Why pick CO2 levels? (Probably because that's the most significant change they can find, and it's significant only in terms of percentages, because it's such a minor part of our atmosphere in the first place).
Also, you're right about the lawns. Countless acres on this planet have been converted from vegetation to asphalt and houses. This probably has some affect on the CO2 levels, and probably could be altered to reverse some of the effect, but I doubt that it would make dramatic changes, since most of the CO2 comes from oceans and similar natural causes.
Both temperatures and CO2 levels have been steadily increasing for 18,000 years, (as demonstrated by ice core data). Why do "global warming promoters" ignore those 18,000 years of data, and insist that recent increases in atmospheric CO2 are unnatural and are the result of only 200 years or so of human pollution? (Do they ignore it because they have their own agenda?)
2005 may have been the hottest year on record, but that's simply because records have only been kept in most areas for roughly 100 years. There are a few temerature records from western Europe, dating from the late 17th century, but it was not common for most regions to record temperatures until roughly a hundred years ago. Therefore, you are comparing current temperature record highs, with a database only about a hundred years old, (this amounts to only one tenth of one percent of the typical long-term cycle).
The hottest period in recent human history is known as the Holocene Maximum, and is a good example of why current short-term temperature cycles and "record highs" should be taken with a grain of salt. This period occurred approximately 9,000 to 5,000 years in the past, thousands of years before the industrial revolution, and temperatures averaged well above current levels, especially at the polar caps. Temperatures then declined for a couple thousand years, and then began to rise again.
The fact that periods of earth warming and cooling occur in cycles is well understood, and so is the fact that small-scale cycles of about 40 years exist within larger-scale cycles of 400 years, which in turn exist inside still larger scale cycles of 20,000 years, which exist inside cycles of 100,000 years, and so on. When all these cycles converge, it gets hot, (or cold, depending on which part of the cycle the earth is in).
It's not rocket science, and there's nothing ominous about it, nor is there any reason to feel guilty about it. It just happens--always has, and always will.
Love,
Wayne
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
-
harvest_table
- Rockhopper Penguin
- Posts: 1509
- Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 6:29 pm
- Location: Fergus Falls, Minnesota
Must be in a cycle, with this heat wave. I took a call today from a woman in Delaware that claimed it was 115 degrees.
Glad I live in Alaska.
Love,
Joanna
Glad I live in Alaska.
Love,
Joanna
THE GLUTEN FILES
http://jccglutenfree.googlepages.com/
http://jccglutenfree.googlepages.com/
-
kate_ce1995
- Rockhopper Penguin
- Posts: 1321
- Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 5:53 pm
- Location: Vermont
Yup, Joanna, Its been hotter than hades on the east coast. We were at 95 yesterday with a heat index of 101-103. NOT usually Vermont weather (well, okay, we usually get a couple days every summer like this, but we hate it all the same). Big thunderboomer went through about 3:30, you could see the steam coming off the pavement after the rain. Temps dropped 15 degrees in the 10 minutes or so of the storm, but then rose right back up. Relief on the way tonight they tell us.
Okay, this isn't supposed to be a weather log.
I agree with Jean that 30 years is not statistically significant. Especially with only about 100 years worth of temperature data. Yes we can look at ice cores and make evaluations about past climate but its still not quite the same as actual in hand data.
Also, remember what a sinosodal curve looks like. The rate of change increases during the asscendingn and decesnding legs whereas near the peaks and valleys, the rate of change slows down. Does it make us feel any better if this is just naturall cycle? No.
But lets do stuff about it to cope. Lets not allow for large development below sea level (I just can't believe anyone ever thought the idea of building all those levees around New Orleans was a good idea), lets not put them in the flood plains either while we're at it. Lets look seriously towards alternative sources of energy. People up here are fighting wind power tooth and nail because they don't want the tops of the mountains visually altered. Quite frankly, I find wind mills sleek, elegant, and a reminder that we do care about the planet. Heck, we've got TV and radio towers on top of all the biggest mountains already. If we didn't VT would have had no tv before cable and satelite were readily available (some areas have to rely on satalite because cable hasn't been run to outlying areas). Meanwhile, as an aside, VT is so busy covering up cell towers to look like trees to "hide" them its pathetic. Do they really think these things look like trees? They stick up way above the tree line and have big gaps where the cones are. Could we not have come up with a more random looking thing that wasn't so symetrical? Other than perfect pines (which there are very few of in the natural world, there are very few symetrical trees out there. Central Vermont Public Service is sponsering a Cow Power program. Farms put in digesting tanks, shovel the cow poop and other farm waste (rotting feed, hay etc) into these tanks and then the methane produced by the digestion runs a generator hooked up to the grid (in the simple version...I'm sure its more complicated than that). COW are a huge polluter! We don't think of them that way, but the methane gas is nothing to snicker at.
Well, I really need to get to work now. I am an environmentalist to an extent, but I also have bigger things to worry about it my life right now.
katy
Okay, this isn't supposed to be a weather log.
I agree with Jean that 30 years is not statistically significant. Especially with only about 100 years worth of temperature data. Yes we can look at ice cores and make evaluations about past climate but its still not quite the same as actual in hand data.
Also, remember what a sinosodal curve looks like. The rate of change increases during the asscendingn and decesnding legs whereas near the peaks and valleys, the rate of change slows down. Does it make us feel any better if this is just naturall cycle? No.
But lets do stuff about it to cope. Lets not allow for large development below sea level (I just can't believe anyone ever thought the idea of building all those levees around New Orleans was a good idea), lets not put them in the flood plains either while we're at it. Lets look seriously towards alternative sources of energy. People up here are fighting wind power tooth and nail because they don't want the tops of the mountains visually altered. Quite frankly, I find wind mills sleek, elegant, and a reminder that we do care about the planet. Heck, we've got TV and radio towers on top of all the biggest mountains already. If we didn't VT would have had no tv before cable and satelite were readily available (some areas have to rely on satalite because cable hasn't been run to outlying areas). Meanwhile, as an aside, VT is so busy covering up cell towers to look like trees to "hide" them its pathetic. Do they really think these things look like trees? They stick up way above the tree line and have big gaps where the cones are. Could we not have come up with a more random looking thing that wasn't so symetrical? Other than perfect pines (which there are very few of in the natural world, there are very few symetrical trees out there. Central Vermont Public Service is sponsering a Cow Power program. Farms put in digesting tanks, shovel the cow poop and other farm waste (rotting feed, hay etc) into these tanks and then the methane produced by the digestion runs a generator hooked up to the grid (in the simple version...I'm sure its more complicated than that). COW are a huge polluter! We don't think of them that way, but the methane gas is nothing to snicker at.
Well, I really need to get to work now. I am an environmentalist to an extent, but I also have bigger things to worry about it my life right now.
katy
Here, here, Katy!
I'll drink to that!
Did you know that in Japanese cities, all new apt. buildings must have solar panels on the roofs to provide the electricity? And that in the Netherlands (where they fear that much of their low-lying country will be under water in the not-too distant future) the architects are designing floating houses? And in Brazil the cars run on biofuels? And that New Zealand derives almost all of its electricity from hydro power (water power)?
Many other countries are figuring out how to use clean energy (energy NOT derived from the combustion of fossil fuels like oil, coal, and gas, which again, by the consensus of thousands of the world's top scientists, IS the major causes of global warming). I hate to see the U.S. lagging so much behind the rest of the world in the pursuit of renewable energy - I think it could be such a boon to our entrepreneurs, our economy, our status in the world, to be in the forefront of this move. (I'll bet y'all are surprised to learn that I am a capitalist at heart! LOL!)
Here is a simple way we can each play a part in helping to reduce global warming. We can replace the regular incandescent light bulbs in our homes with the new super-efficient compact fluorescent lights (CFLs). Although they cost more, they are much more energy-efficient and burn 10 times longer. (In the regular bulb, only 10% of the electricity is used for generating light - the other 90% is lost as heat.) Doesn't sound like it would have much impact, right? WRONG! If every U.S. household would replace just one old bulb with a CFL, it would have the same effect on pollution as removing a million cars from our roads!!!
Love,
Polly
P.S. Tex, I'll respond to your very thoughtful post later - gotta go do some work.
I'll drink to that!
Did you know that in Japanese cities, all new apt. buildings must have solar panels on the roofs to provide the electricity? And that in the Netherlands (where they fear that much of their low-lying country will be under water in the not-too distant future) the architects are designing floating houses? And in Brazil the cars run on biofuels? And that New Zealand derives almost all of its electricity from hydro power (water power)? Many other countries are figuring out how to use clean energy (energy NOT derived from the combustion of fossil fuels like oil, coal, and gas, which again, by the consensus of thousands of the world's top scientists, IS the major causes of global warming). I hate to see the U.S. lagging so much behind the rest of the world in the pursuit of renewable energy - I think it could be such a boon to our entrepreneurs, our economy, our status in the world, to be in the forefront of this move. (I'll bet y'all are surprised to learn that I am a capitalist at heart! LOL!)
Here is a simple way we can each play a part in helping to reduce global warming. We can replace the regular incandescent light bulbs in our homes with the new super-efficient compact fluorescent lights (CFLs). Although they cost more, they are much more energy-efficient and burn 10 times longer. (In the regular bulb, only 10% of the electricity is used for generating light - the other 90% is lost as heat.) Doesn't sound like it would have much impact, right? WRONG! If every U.S. household would replace just one old bulb with a CFL, it would have the same effect on pollution as removing a million cars from our roads!!!
Love,
Polly
P.S. Tex, I'll respond to your very thoughtful post later - gotta go do some work.
Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused.
-
kate_ce1995
- Rockhopper Penguin
- Posts: 1321
- Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 5:53 pm
- Location: Vermont
Evening, Tex and All!
I'm going to make this my next-to last last post on this thread (is that a collective sigh of relief I hear? LOL!). Tex, I will respond only to the section where you used red type, since I assume that's your most important point. Very clever of you to use red while discussing the warming cycles, BTW.
You are absolutely correct that, during the Holocene Period of the last 10,000 years or so, there were periods of warming due to natural cycles. People have especially been interested in the mid-Holocene era - about 6000 years ago. To clarify this issue, I will refer to the experts at NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. This is the U.S. government agency that employs many top climate scientists and is responsible for environmental research:
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/holocene.html
In summarizing the events of the mid-Holocene warming cycle, the scientists say that the avg. temperature variations from that period did not exceed those of today and that the natural causes of the warming during that period "cannot be responsible for the warming over the last hundred years".
Also, check out the NOAA global warming FAQs at:
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
Question 3 (about increasing greenhouse gases) and question 9 (about importance of changes longterm) are pertinent. In #9, it states that "For the Northern Hemisphere summer temperature, recent decades appear to be the warmest since at least about 1000 A.D."
Wayne, my very dear friend, it is obvious that you do not believe in the validity of the research or projections of the current climate scientists. And you have EVERY RIGHT to your opinions. Since I, however, do, it is time for us to agree to disagree! Shake?
Love,
Polly
I'm going to make this my next-to last last post on this thread (is that a collective sigh of relief I hear? LOL!). Tex, I will respond only to the section where you used red type, since I assume that's your most important point. Very clever of you to use red while discussing the warming cycles, BTW.
You are absolutely correct that, during the Holocene Period of the last 10,000 years or so, there were periods of warming due to natural cycles. People have especially been interested in the mid-Holocene era - about 6000 years ago. To clarify this issue, I will refer to the experts at NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. This is the U.S. government agency that employs many top climate scientists and is responsible for environmental research:
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/holocene.html
In summarizing the events of the mid-Holocene warming cycle, the scientists say that the avg. temperature variations from that period did not exceed those of today and that the natural causes of the warming during that period "cannot be responsible for the warming over the last hundred years".
Also, check out the NOAA global warming FAQs at:
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
Question 3 (about increasing greenhouse gases) and question 9 (about importance of changes longterm) are pertinent. In #9, it states that "For the Northern Hemisphere summer temperature, recent decades appear to be the warmest since at least about 1000 A.D."
Wayne, my very dear friend, it is obvious that you do not believe in the validity of the research or projections of the current climate scientists. And you have EVERY RIGHT to your opinions. Since I, however, do, it is time for us to agree to disagree! Shake?
Love,
Polly
Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused.