Public Q for PJ; Glbl. Warm. Consequences

[O'nus]

I did not PM this question because I think it can give rise to good discussion considering the topic. A while back we discussed global warming. The truth and debate about global warming aside; I am curious if you are satisfied with how implementations are going? To anyone else reading; do you think global warming implementations have been beneficial so far..? Manipulative in anyway..? ~

[O'nus]

Nothing...? ~

[Tornado Joe]

Eh... ok, I'll bite: Something I found on another site that's interesting to note: We all know that the Earth is experiencing global warming and other changes, whether the petroleum giants like it or not. Just read the headlines. What we may NOT know is the following: SUN: The Sun’s magnetic field is over 230 percent stronger now than it was at the beginning of the 1900s, and its overall energetic activity has sizably increased, creating a frenzy of activity that continues to embarrass NASA’s official predictions. VENUS: Venus is now glowing in the dark, as is Jupiter’s moon Io. EARTH: In the last 30 years, Earth’s icecaps have thinned out by as much as 40 percent. Quite inexplicably, just since 1997 the structure of the Earth has shifted from being slightly more egg-shaped, or elongated at the poles, to more pumpkin-shaped, or flattened at the poles. No one at NASA has even bothered to try to explain this yet. Link to full article at NASA. MARS: The icecaps of Mars noticeably melted just within one year, causing 50-percent changes in surface features. Atmospheric density had risen by 200 percent above previous observations as of 1997. JUPITER: Jupiter has become so highly energized that it is now surrounded by a visibly glowing donut tube of energy in the path of the moon Io. The size of Jupiter’s magnetic field has more than doubled since 1992. SATURN: Saturn’s polar regions have been noticeably brightening, and its magnetic field strength increasing. URANUS: According to NASA’s Voyager II space probe, Uranus and Neptune both appear to have had recent magnetic pole shifts – 60 degrees for Uranus and 50 for Neptune. NEPTUNE: Neptune has become 40 percent brighter in infrared since 1996, and is fully 100-percent brighter in certain areas. Also, Neptune’s moon Triton has had a “very large percentage increase” in atmospheric pressure and temperature, comparable to a 22-degree Fahrenheit increase on Earth. PLUTO: As of September 2002, Pluto has experienced a 300-percent increase in its atmospheric pressure in the last 14 years, while also becoming noticeably darker in color. My point? Well, if this is really due to the movement of our solar system, then I guess there would be no point in implementing the emissions bills and such. We really have no choice in the matter. We should be stock pilling sunblock, rubber boots, flashlights and batteries

[Volcon]

There are some good things about global warming, Africa is getting more rain for one, but i'm in a gnnnarrr mood so i'll post more later.

[Spartiate]

Eh... ok, I'll bite: Something I found on another site that's interesting to note: We all know that the Earth is experiencing global warming and other changes, whether the petroleum giants like it or not. Just read the headlines. What we may NOT know is the following: SUN: The Sun’s magnetic field is over 230 percent stronger now than it was at the beginning of the 1900s, and its overall energetic activity has sizably increased, creating a frenzy of activity that continues to embarrass NASA’s official predictions. VENUS: Venus is now glowing in the dark, as is Jupiter’s moon Io. EARTH: In the last 30 years, Earth’s icecaps have thinned out by as much as 40 percent. Quite inexplicably, just since 1997 the structure of the Earth has shifted from being slightly more egg-shaped, or elongated at the poles, to more pumpkin-shaped, or flattened at the poles. No one at NASA has even bothered to try to explain this yet. Link to full article at NASA. MARS: The icecaps of Mars noticeably melted just within one year, causing 50-percent changes in surface features. Atmospheric density had risen by 200 percent above previous observations as of 1997. JUPITER: Jupiter has become so highly energized that it is now surrounded by a visibly glowing donut tube of energy in the path of the moon Io. The size of Jupiter’s magnetic field has more than doubled since 1992. SATURN: Saturn’s polar regions have been noticeably brightening, and its magnetic field strength increasing. URANUS: According to NASA’s Voyager II space probe, Uranus and Neptune both appear to have had recent magnetic pole shifts – 60 degrees for Uranus and 50 for Neptune. NEPTUNE: Neptune has become 40 percent brighter in infrared since 1996, and is fully 100-percent brighter in certain areas. Also, Neptune’s moon Triton has had a “very large percentage increase” in atmospheric pressure and temperature, comparable to a 22-degree Fahrenheit increase on Earth. PLUTO: As of September 2002, Pluto has experienced a 300-percent increase in its atmospheric pressure in the last 14 years, while also becoming noticeably darker in color. My point? Well, if this is really due to the movement of our solar system, then I guess there would be no point in implementing the emissions bills and such. We really have no choice in the matter. We should be stock pilling sunblock, rubber boots, flashlights and batteries That was posted before some time, a lot of it is crap, notice that the site looks questionable too ... It's also worth noting that global warming is just part of the problem of climate change, a process that we are at the very least accelerating. I can't vouch for any other country, but here in Canada, the new conservative government has done crap about the environment and even backed out of the Kyoto accord, I wasn't too impressed by that.

[Tornado Joe]

That was posted before some time, a lot of it is crap, notice that the site looks questionable too ... Yah, I'm not talking about the guy who owns the site, or the Ascension thing - but those particular bits of information seem to be accurate - as he does provide references to check into them (I probably should have before I posted, but hell, I've seen people post lots worse!)

[Spartiate]

Yah, I'm not talking about the guy who owns the site, or the Ascension thing - but those particular bits of information seem to be accurate - as he does provide references to check into them (I probably should have before I posted, but hell, I've seen people post lots worse!) Hehe, well I'll just use that Earth bit for an example. When you read the NASA article, there's a long technical description of how the Earth's gravitational field is changing, which isn't all that easy to comprehend in the first place... Now on the site, that somehow equates to "The Earth's structure has changed and is now more flattened at the poles". Well this was always the case, not just since 1997. Here's an excerpt from this atlas dating from 1972 that I use as a mousepad: Equatorial diameter.......... 7,926.677 miles Polar diameter................. 7,899.988 miles So the planet was never egg shaped to begin with. This leads me to believe that most of the article is a collection of twisted facts and half truths.

[Mystic7]

Co2 feeds trees not kills them. Al-gore and nonsensical cult will eventually look like the flat earth society.

[Mystic7]

Spartiate it's not just one website that has those facts avaliable. You can tell Tornado Joe made a good post there. Because you didn't like it and thought it was crap. That's a good indicator considering fools hate knowledge.

[Spartiate]

Make one post next time. Of course trees need CO2, that's not disputed, it just so happens that an overabundance of the gas in our atmosphere turns our planet into a furnace. I don't give a damn about Al Gore, climate change existed long before he ever got interested in it. I just proved why some of that information was crap, something you often fail to do. The fact that all of it was copied and pasted on different websites of unclear credentials doesn't improve its credibility. It would be fun if everybody could win debates your way... "Many facts state that I'm right, by disagreeing with me, you are denying the obvious and are therefore a blind fool." *Everyone is convinced*

[wasup]

Yeah the above article does seem like a bit of crap. I mean any source saying that Earth used to be elongated at the poles... furthermore it isn't only a misunderstanding but they throw in something 100% false in there "nobody at nasa has even tried to explain this yet." If there is one thing about science, it is explainable. Now, if there is one thing about astronomy... well, people can calculate things to incredibly accurate rates and stuff. Earth is "fatter" around the middle because the constant energy of the spinning brings those sides outward and slightly deforms the shape of the sphere.

[O'nus]

My real concern is over whether or not adhereing to global warming advice has any grand consequences. For example: I am encouraged to buy new light bulbs. Consequence; I save money on my electricity bill. I am encouraged to buy fuel-efficient cars. Consequence; I save money on gas. Get where I am going...? ~

[Tornado Joe]

Yup - sorry my first post created such a tangent. O'nus. Ok well, the light bulbs thing I plan on doing - just haven't yet. You really notice a difference in the bill? That's encouraging (I thought it just made you have to replace them less often). Fuel efficient cars - you may save on gas, but if you're looking at the new alternative fuel cars, don't expect to save on money when you purchase it (that's even if it's available). Then there's the predicament of where you can fuel up (can't go to a regular gas station). How about recycling? There are some communities where I live that provide different receptacles, one for paper, one for glass, plastic, etc. What I don't get is that the products created with recycled waste ends up being more expensive, no? For example, I've notice this with paper (see "Pricing"). Unfortunately, most people are not in a position to spend a little extra 'for the sake of the planet' - damn recession - so until recycled products can compete in price, that may be a lost cause - in some cases. Solar Energy - I noticed they've erected some solar panels at a park near my house where I walk my dog. There's no explanation as to why they're there, or what they power (at least not yet), but it's encouraging to see that kind of thing being done. How can the general population use it? Well, in my opinion, energy efficient homes would probably have the greatest impact on a planetary scale.

[O'nus]

Ok well, the light bulbs thing I plan on doing - just haven't yet. You really notice a difference in the bill? That's encouraging (I thought it just made you have to replace them less often). There could be a confounding variable, but I have noticed a difference. Fuel efficient cars - you may save on gas, but if you're looking at the new alternative fuel cars, don't expect to save on money when you purchase it (that's even if it's available). Then there's the predicament of where you can fuel up (can't go to a regular gas station). Yeah, that is the problem with them. However, I own a Toyota Yaris which warranted me an "environmental choice credit" of a couple hundred dollars and it is good on gas (never spent over $40 to fill up). However, yes, there is definitly better alternatives. However, I am not given them. This is where I think the crux of the controversy is. My other question is then, what is the best way to integrate new forms of cars and energy without a huge disruption in our economy? How about recycling? There are some communities where I live that provide different receptacles, one for paper, one for glass, plastic, etc. What I don't get is that the products created with recycled waste ends up being more expensive, no? For example, I've notice this with paper (see "Pricing"). Unfortunately, most people are not in a position to spend a little extra 'for the sake of the planet' - damn recession - so until recycled products can compete in price, that may be a lost cause. As far I understand, there are problems with recycling. I do not advocate it but I certainly do my best to not be wasteful. I am not sure what to think about recycling.. ~

[skysaw]

Something I don't understand... Why do people who come to the conclusion that a warming cycle is natural think that we shouldn't do anything about it? Whatever natural causes may be, there's no doubt that pushing CO2, methane, CFCs, ozone and nitrous oxide speed up the process. How much seems to still be in debate, but shouldn't we be doing everything we can to keep from frying the planet?

[O'nus]

Something I don't understand... Why do people who come to the conclusion that a warming cycle is natural think that we shouldn't do anything about it? Whatever natural causes may be, there's no doubt that pushing CO2, methane, CFCs, ozone and nitrous oxide speed up the process. How much seems to still be in debate, but shouldn't we be doing everything we can to keep from frying the planet? Exactly what I am saying. The skeptics will say that we should keep in mind that some of these implementations are malicious. However, if a company is deliberately made to produce efficient light bulbs or X efficient product, is it really bad if we advocate it..? Even if it is not a problem? This is kind of like taking Echinacea; it is proven to do nothing, but it does not hurt to take if you want to. ~

[Tornado Joe]

My other question is then, what is the best way to integrate new forms of cars and energy without a huge disruption in our economy? Well, the nature of vehicles are for transportation - so there's no way around needing fueling "stations" throughout the areas of travel unless the vehicle used a fuel which was not dependent on something that couldn't be extracted from anywhere (see my entry above about solar energy).

[O'nus]

Well, the nature of vehicles are for transportation - so there's no way around needing "stations" throughout the areas of travel unless the vehicle used a fuel which was not dependent on something that couldn't be extracted from anywhere (see my entry above about solar energy). Right, now imagine the billions of car-owners that would suddenly have to shift to new vehicles and the shock to our economy. This is where my question comes in; how do we gradually introduce it then? Should we not be patient about it then? If it does not come, then start throwing stones? ~

[Tornado Joe]

Well there's no way to flip a switch and have everyone on fuel efficient cars - the process itself would be gradual even if they announced some plan in which everyone who turned in their current gasoline car would get a certain value of credit towards a new efficient car. There's still the time it would take for people to make the switch, time it would take to produce the new cars, time to smash up and recycle the old ones, there will be people that won't want to change... etc, etc. We're probably not going to see the time when the mass is using alternative fuels and there will be only few gas stations throughout the country. But, you have to admit that the wheels are spinning (yes, pun intended) - if not for the sake of the planet, for the fact that people are fed up with the dependancy on petroleum. That, and this new generation (Gen X and newer) have a bit of a green/hippie streak going which, once they're old enough to hold high positions in government and corporations, may just carry out what we're starting today.

[Spartiate]

The thing is that nature won't wait passively for us to gradually change our ways. Some things might need to be pushed faster than we would like, or we could cause some irreparable damage. We're really stuck in between a rock and a hard place...