Gulf stream slows down

[geezerbob]

walstan:

Quite true but, in the past when volcanoes discharged into the atmosphere there was an abundance of greenary (Trees etc.) and plankton in the sea to soak up the excess CO2 quite quickly.

Man has destroyed a great number of the trees and vegetation and his overuse of pesticides and insecticides and others has reduced both the quantity and effectiveness of natures own vacuum cleaners. So the problem is not one of pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere it’s one of destroying the natural balance God created. (Free will can have it’s down as well as up side). Or do you not think God created the natural order of things or that man cannot upset it?

I do know that God created and ordered the universe and don’t know why you would even ask such a question. I find it more that a little insulting.

There are more trees in the U. S. now than there were a hundred years ago. Unfortunately, that is not the case in many parts of the world, even though we seem to get credit for destroying forests worldwide. What do you propose we do about it?

I see pollution now and compare it with what it was fifty years ago and, despite the increase in population, have noted the improvement in air and water quality in the U. S. The same cannot be said for countries such as China where dung fires are routinely used for cooking and spew untold amounts of pollution into the atmosphere, dwarfing what the more developed countries do. Again, since we have been and still are successfully working to lower our emissions here, how do you propose to limit the pollution from other nations?

Just so you understand my position, I am delighted at the progress that has been made here and in other industrialized countries but realize that our efforts must continue. I am dismayed at the stone throwing at us from less developed countries who are making no effort to clean us their own mess. Just because I don’t get all excited about things that man has little control over doesn’t mean that I think we should all run around and do everything possible to destroy the earth.

Finally, we’ve got all kinds of “experts” making all kinds of conflicting statements about the effect man is having on the environment but they’re all dealing with isolated bits and pieces of it. The total environment of the earth is so complex in its dynamics that we will probably never fully understand how it all works together, much less what total effect a single catastrophic event or the cumulative effects of man’s activities might have on it. I’ll repeat my earlier statement that at the current time, it’s all speculation based on limited evidence dealing with a specific area of concern, which may or may not be valid in other areas.

 

[vern_humphrey]

norbert:

Maybe you don’t know why it’s happening, Geezer, but climatologists know that global warming is happening because of man’s introduction of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Maybe if you’re really a geezer, it doesn’t matter to you. Scoff at it. You’ll be dead before we really see the consequences. Maybe think of your kids though, or your grandkids. They’ll be the ones living in that world.

So how do you explain all the previous ice ages and the interglacial (global warming) periods?

In the last million years, there have been about 10 ice ages and an equal number of interglacial periods – were men pouring greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere hundreds of thousands of years ago?

 

[StJeanneDArc]

One of the greenhouse gases causing global warming is CO2. Remember the old joke about getting taxed on the air you breathe? If the earth-worshippers have their way we’ll get taxed on the air we exhale. Sheesh.

 

[norbert]

vern humphrey:

So how do you explain all the previous ice ages and the interglacial (global warming) periods?

In the last million years, there have been about 10 ice ages and an equal number of interglacial periods – were men pouring greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere hundreds of thousands of years ago?

No one is denying that a normal cyclic climatic variation exists. It is very clear, though, that the current rate of change of temperature is far more than would be predicted to occur “naturally” in any model. It is clear to all climate scientists that man is responsible. There is no “controversy” about these facts. People who say there is “conflicting” information don’t know what they’re talking about. The tragedy is that in a short period of time - 10 or 20 years - we’ll have reached a no-return point, when warming will accelerate no matter what we do. To old people like Geezerbob, I guess it doesn’t matter. To me, 33 years old with two babies at home, I do think about the future and hope my kids and their kids live on a live-able planet. Maybe if I close my eyes tightly and cover my hands with my ears, though, global warming won’t happen.

 

[vern_humphrey]

norbert:

No one is denying that a normal cyclic climatic variation exists. It is very clear, though, that the current rate of change of temperature is far more than would be predicted to occur “naturally” in any model. It is clear to all climate scientists that man is responsible. There is no “controversy” about these facts. People who say there is “conflicting” information don’t know what they’re talking about. The tragedy is that in a short period of time - 10 or 20 years - we’ll have reached a no-return point, when warming will accelerate no matter what we do. To old people like Geezerbob, I guess it doesn’t matter. To me, 33 years old with two babies at home, I do think about the future and hope my kids and their kids live on a live-able planet. Maybe if I close my eyes tightly and cover my hands with my ears, though, global warming won’t happen.

Actually, we’re behind schedule (the Little Ice Age slowed down the normal warming.) We are currently right on the cusp – the average world temperature taking into account both ice ages and interglacial periods. The rate of warming in this interglacial period is slightly slower than earlier periods.

Global warming is not something we somehow did to the planet – it’s natural and happens regularly.

And, given that it is natural, it’s not something we can stop or reverse.

Finally, all the evidence is that integlacial periods are more fruitful than ice ages.

 

[pnewton]

norbert:

It is clear to all climate scientists that man is responsible. There is no “controversy” about these facts. People who say there is “conflicting” information don’t know what they’re talking about. .

Saying it doesn’t make it so. If there is “no controversy” then why the division of opinion?

 

[vern_humphrey]

pnewton:

Saying it doesn’t make it so. If there is “no controversy” then why the division of opinion?

If I could get the forum to take it, I’d post a graph from NOAA that shows 4 ice ages and four inter glacial periods in the last 400,000 years.

If THIS warming is being caused by man, what caused the OTHER warming periods?

 

[Jeffrey]

Yep. :whacky:

FightingFat:

Still think global warming is a myth?

 

[DaveBj]

Lisa4Catholics:

CLIMATE change researchers have detected the first signs of a slowdown in the Gulf Stream — the mighty ocean current that keeps Britain and Europe from freezing…

Cool! (Oops! Bad word choice )

I saw a Discovery Channel program on this several years ago, and at the time I wondered if anyone was keeping track of the sinking-water engine.

Hmm. Maybe I’d better invest in British snow-tire imports.

DaveBj

 

[pnewton]

vern humphrey:

If I could get the forum to take it, I’d post a graph from NOAA that shows 4 ice ages and four inter glacial periods in the last 400,000 years.

If THIS warming is being caused by man, what caused the OTHER warming periods?

Recent experimentation with photonic interaction has shown the photons can interact with each other even when they are released one at a time. This interaction can only be explained because by the fact that photons upon being released had a temporal effect on those previously released.

I am sure that environmental science will some day prove that spray cans were used so prolifically and with such evil intent that the temporal effect preceded their actual use and thus have been causing ice ages for the last 400,000 years.

We just need to put enough money into this research.

 

[vern_humphrey]

pnewton:

Recent experimentation with photonic interaction has shown the photons can interact with each other even when they are released one at a time. This interaction can only be explained because by the fact that photons upon being released had a temporal effect on those previously released.

I am sure that environmental science will some day prove that spray cans were used so prolifically and with such evil intent that the temporal effect preceded their actual use and thus have been causing ice ages for the last 400,000 years.

We just need to put enough money into this research.

That’s one theory. I personally think the last ice age was ended by paleo-indians hunting mammoths from SUVs.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

 

[walstan]

geezerbob:

There are more trees in the U. S. now than there were a hundred years ago.

Camparing the number of trees now with a hundred years ago means nothing. A hundred years in geological terms is zilch. Now if you compared it to a hundred thousand years ago you may be onto something. A hundred thousand years ago the continent on which you live had over a thousand times more vegetation than it now does. Now if you can reproduce that you may be on the way to producing an effective CO2 sink to lessen the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Whilst your at it try exprting all your excess food production to Brazil, then they won’t have to keep destroying the rain forest to feed themselves. Or how about using cars with 1 or 1.5 litre engines instead of the 5 and 6 litres you have at the moment.

Again, since we have been and still are successfully working to lower our emissions here, how do you propose to limit the pollution from other nations?

Thats a good question but it begs another question, who is the driving force behind these industries that create this polution, in other words who are the customers? and where is the backing money coming from. Union Carbide in India where not the only “Western” company to move most of their production overseas to escape the environmental limitations imposed by Western Society, and I would suggest the people of Bopal are the ones that ultimately suffered.

It strikes me that in the western world we always want somebody else to do something about our problem. If it remotely effects our way of life we instantly blaim the others.

In the UK we have an expression for people that are not “with it” we usually say “Earth Calling”, sadly it is, but we aren’t listening.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

dumspirospero:

Let me guess…somehow Bush is going to be blamed for this.

Of course. Bush has a ranch, with cattle who pass gas, doesn’t he? If he doesn’t then he continues to allow others to get away with this.

 

[geezerbob]

Walston, you seem to be missing or ignoring several of the points I was attempting to make.

Comparing our forests to 100 years ago was done to show progress, not perfection. We can’t make comparisons to 100,000 years ago because we don’t know how many people were around or what the vegetation was. Regardless, food crops absorb carbon dioxide just like any other plant, whether in the U. S or in Brazil, so I fail to see a lot of difference between them and trees except that we can’t eat trees. And, in another thread, someone argued that rain forests were a net producer of carbon dioxide because of the decomposition of materials on the forest floor. Just let that statement lie for now unless you want to research it.

It’s a fact that people need a certain amount of space for living, food production, etc., no matter what level of industrial development they have. It could be easily argued that the less developed nations pollute more, per capita, than the developed ones simply because of economy of scale in producing the things needed for life. That’s without factoring in the technical ability to control emissions that is currently present (for the most part) in large companies. Umpteen million dung fires a day in China produce a heck of a lot more pollution than a few coal-fired generating stations equipped with scrubbers that limit emissions.

Your point about gas hog cars is well taken, although I don’t know what I, as one individual, can do about it except to drive a small car myself.

By the way, a large portion of our excess grain production ends up in Africa to feed the starving. Would you rather save trees in Brazil or people in Africa? A third option would be for the people of Brazil to realize that we have only one earth and start to manage their land and other resources more effectively. A fourth option which would help would be for African leaders to straighten up, educate their people, and become more self-sufficient. Look at the former Rhodesia which once had food for itself and plenty to export and is now starving.

The troubles of the world are not all the fault of the U. S. as you imply in your post. You also fail to mention what your country is doing, for good or bad, about any of it. Enough U. S. bashing, already!

 

[walstan]

geezerbob:

The troubles of the world are not all the fault of the U. S. as you imply in your post. You also fail to mention what your country is doing, for good or bad, about any of it. Enough U. S. bashing, already!

There is another string to this forum that goes on about people hating the US. I often wonder when reading it whether people actually hate the US or that the US is paranoid about people possibly hating it, or maybe some in the States like to be hated, in that way they can justify their own insularity. If you read my post I specifically referred to the “WESTERN” world, not the US and I also use the inclusive word “WE” when talking about a lot of the ills of the world, so that includes WESTERN Europe as well, and probably a great deal of Central and Eastern Europe.

What are we doing about it? most of the world signed up to Kyoto, it wasn’t perfect but it was a start; now we are into US bashing, the US refused, so why do you think that your ideas, or science, or solutions are better than the rest of the world put together resulting in your apparent ability to ignore all other scientific opinion? What give America the right to consume over 30% of the total world resources and yet appear to contribute nothing to there effects on everyone else? Why does America appear to put its prosperous life style via its industrial capacity above the needs of the world as a whole?

You will note the highlights. I suspect that much of what the world sees is perception rather than reality, unfortunately when you don’t demonstrate the reality then the only thing left is perception.

 

[walstan]

AlanFromWichita:

Of course. Bush has a ranch, with cattle who pass gas, doesn’t he? If he doesn’t then he continues to allow others to get away with this.

I suspect there is more out of Capitol Hill and Westminster than Bush’s cattle!

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Global warming gained popularity when computers models “predicted” it. Computer models that were very crude, and had certain limitations – on such limitation is that the oceans were not taken into account.

Global warming is based on “bad” science. Doesn’t mean it isn’t happening, but one good volcano eruption has more ozone-depleting material than 10 years of industrial production. The earth can handle it.

Does that mean we are environmentally responsible? No. Idiots on both sides propose wacky extremist solutions or non-solutions. What we need is to get the politics out and get “real” environmental engineers in. That’s not likely to happen, any time soon, though.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Oh yeah, not to mention the huge “earth summit” they held a few years ago on Earth Day. They spent gazillions of bucks to build a huge, air-conditioned complex for it and flew in everybody who was environmentally important around the world. If global warming based on ozone depletion by man made chemicals was really a factor, then the “earth day” people are as much the problem as the solution.

These people see humans as an enemy of nature because it furthers their political ambitions. Responsible environmentalists see humans as a part of nature.

 

[vern_humphrey]

walstan:

Camparing the number of trees now with a hundred years ago means nothing. A hundred years in geological terms is zilch. Now if you compared it to a hundred thousand years ago you may be onto something.

Yet those who want to rouse us over global warming only go back a few hundred years.

walstan:

A hundred thousand years ago the continent on which you live had over a thousand times more vegetation than it now does.

No. A hundred thousand years ago, the earth was only slightly warmer than it is now. The earth was more fertile because of the added warmth, but not that much fertile.

 

[norbert]

AlanFromWichita:

Oh yeah, not to mention the huge “earth summit” they held a few years ago on Earth Day. They spent gazillions of bucks to build a huge, air-conditioned complex for it and flew in everybody who was environmentally important around the world. If global warming based on ozone depletion by man made chemicals was really a factor, then the “earth day” people are as much the problem as the solution.

These people see humans as an enemy of nature because it furthers their political ambitions. Responsible environmentalists see humans as a part of nature.

Global warming has nothing to do with ozone depletion. These are totally different issues. Do some reading.