| Pages:
1
..
11
12
13
14
15
..
25 |
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 64705
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
So let's go to Baja and enjoy it before it is underwater or covered in evil corporate pollution!
|
|
|
monoloco
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6667
Registered: 7-13-2009
Location: Pescadero BCS
Member Is Offline
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by David K  | Norte, when just one volcano erupts, it dwarfs all of man's pollution in output... and volcanoes erupt all over the world since the beginning of time.
Nature has a mechanism to balance this. Every so often, Nature 're-boots', so watch out... there's NOTHING you can do about that!
I hate pollution and I don't even smoke, never have, I love the outdoors... so because I am against big government, taxing the working people to
death, and insane regulations on life, does NOT mean I am for polluting corporations or polluting government operations (too many dirty socialist run
industries in the rest of the world to name). |
It's estimated that volcanos emit about 200 million tons of
CO2 into the atmosphere annually, while the burning of fossil fuels contribute 26.8 BILLION tons annually. So while the earth can easily handle the
amount of CO2 that volcanos emit, I seriously doubt that the more than 1000 times more produced by humans will not have some kind of significant
effect on the global climate.
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.ht...
"The future ain't what it used to be"
|
|
|
wessongroup
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21152
Registered: 8-9-2009
Location: Mission Viejo
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suicide Hot line ... please hold
|
|
Here are some of Professor Richard Lindzen, of MIT, thoughts as published at the National Academy of Science
Simple search using the individuals name
http://www.pnas.org/search?fulltext=Richard+S.+Lindzen&s...
Draw you own conclusions ... that is still allowed 
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by norte | | Quote: Originally posted by Barry A. | | Quote: Originally posted by norte | | Lindzen retired in 2013. Besides, God will send a message to David if and when the sea levels are rising. |
Retired, eh. No wonder he is now able to give his REAL view on matters without fear of damage caused by the retribution and ridicule from his
(tolerant) Liberal peers which has already begun.
As for your comments about David and God--------I think I hear thunder------------and possibly being listed by ISIS for neck-chopping or fire.
Be careful out there as you will get no help or sympathy from the Pres. on matters such as this. 
Barry
|
I am sure the families of the departed would appreciate your IS (ISIS) comment.. Back to the topic and comments relative to GOD and climate, how
would anyone not believe that the things that human beings do would effect the environment and climate. It seems rather obvious, whether it be
consuming resources or contributing to the state of nature through byproducts of consumption. |
Norte------your first sentence here simply does not compute to me------why would they "not appreciate" what I said about ISIS???? But I think it
reasonable to conclude that your sarcasm about God and David could be offensive to believers worldwide and from every denomination (100's of
millions).
Of COURSE what humans do affects the environment-------Few would argue with THAT----- but we are a PART of that environment!!! not apart from it, and
not "bad"!!! EVERYTHING effects the environment. All the apparent panic and anxiety about human impact is, to me, simply absurd. We each should
do what we can to reasonably minimize any recognized adverse consequence of our actions (and I do), but certainly not turn the economy of the world on
it's ear in an attempt to mitigate a possible impact when that effort would, even if taken to extreme measures, affect the outcome by less than 3% + -
------to me THAT is just insane, and I will vigorously oppose it.
I am not a "climate change" denier, but I certainly am very skeptical of the scope and impact of man's involvement, and am also skeptical that it is
significant long-term----especially considering there is little we can do about it.
In other words, there is a lot of hand-wringing going on, and it's counter-productive and potentially damaging.
But yes, we in the SW are in a drought-------of that I have no doubt---------but this too will pass (or not) if history is any indication, and I
highly doubt that man has much to do with it. Trying to legislate the outcome is an exercise in futility and would lead to partial but serious
economic ruin!!! Mankind WILL adapt if the cosmos don't kill us first-------the latter not our choice, but the former certainly is.
Barry
|
|
|
wessongroup
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21152
Registered: 8-9-2009
Location: Mission Viejo
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suicide Hot line ... please hold
|
|
It is after all a matter of "scale" ...
One billion people ... compared to _________ billion
And they all require: food, water, shelter, medicine et al
The larger the scale, the greater the impact ... kinda like comets, volcanoes and individual species .. they all have "impact" ... just a matter of
the "scale" of the impact
[Edited on 3-7-2015 by wessongroup]
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by wessongroup | It is after all a matter of "scale" ...
One billion people ... compared to _________ billion
And they all require: food, water, shelter, medicine et al
The larger the scale, the greater the impact ... kinda like comets, volcanoes and individual species .. they all have "impact" ... just a matter of
the "scale" of the impact
[Edited on 3-7-2015 by wessongroup] |
Yep, you are soooo right!!! In my business I recall the impact of thousands of cattle over-grazing the public lands---------HUGE impact. But in
time, all returns to balance when the cattle are no longer there----but it sure takes longer in the case of "comets, volcanoes" and other disasters.
That pesky sun is scary, too.
Life on Earth is so fragile, even without mankind trying to manipulate things.
Barry
|
|
|
Cliffy
Senior Nomad
Posts: 983
Registered: 12-19-2013
Member Is Offline
|
|
Land masses have been moving on Earth for 5 billion years. Up and down and sideways. Let's go back to Pangea.
O2 levels were way higher and the climate lots warmer in the days of dinosaurs. Dino-farts?
We had an ice age 10 or 12,000 years ago with ice down to Alabama.
It seems to have warmed up since then, all on its own.
Millions of species have died off on Earth from its conception without man's intervention. Natural evolution?
All of this was without the "help" of man.
There's been no warming trend for last 18 years by all accounts.
To extrapolate that 20 or 30 years of "observations" into "it's man's fault" is a stretch when all of man's time on earth is but a blink of the eye in
Earth time.
My postulation remains- "Why is man's existence on Earth considered an anomaly rather than just another natural evolutionary process of the earth.
To think that man has an affect on the total Earth's viability over the long term is pure folly. Even if it has an effect, it's still a natural
evolutionary process!
The sky is not falling.
|
|
|
wessongroup
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21152
Registered: 8-9-2009
Location: Mission Viejo
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suicide Hot line ... please hold
|
|
Saw much the same with Ag land in CA and many other states where we saw huge growth in the 60s and 70s and of course in the 90s and up just past the
mid way in the 2000s ..
We have been "planting" house and/or buildings for some time ... there is after all, only so much good land to grow on ... or "raise" cattle ... which
is important too
Not sure if "more" will turn the corner on this one ...
As for trends ... this still says quite a bit .. IMHO as it relates to "scale"
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
What's the theory for the cause of the 5 spikes in CO2 which seem pretty cyclic during the past 650K years, do you know?
Barry
|
|
|
Cliffy
Senior Nomad
Posts: 983
Registered: 12-19-2013
Member Is Offline
|
|
What was it 200, 300 or 400,000,000 years ago?
Even 350,000 years ago is but minute fraction of time since the dinosaurs.
Would we watch 3 mins of the stock ticker and then predict what the market will do 20 years from now knowing its past history?
Too little information monitored over too short a time span to make determinate predictions.
Follow the money.
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Cliffy | What was it 200, 300 or 400,000,000 years ago?
Even 350,000 years ago is but minute fraction of time since the dinosaurs.
Would we watch 3 mins of the stock ticker and then predict what the market will do 20 years from now knowing its past history?
Too little information monitored over too short a time span to make determinate predictions.
Follow the money. |
Excellent points!!!! Many totally known variables propel the Market and we still can't figure it out, and the climate is vastly more complicated and
unknown.
Barry
|
|
|
wessongroup
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21152
Registered: 8-9-2009
Location: Mission Viejo
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suicide Hot line ... please hold
|
|
The "spike" which is causing the "concern" ... isn't any of those .... those are BELOW that one line, which covers the time frame being discussed from
sampling and hence of no immediate concern to all life and/or all the environment as we know and understand it, at this time
The ice core sample represent the environment for over 650,00 years as it relates to "CO2" levels found in the atmosphere ... ya know the air
And the spike of concern, centers on 1950 when consumption of fossil fuels used increased about 10 million barrels a day
Or at lest that is the way I see and understand it ... which is unusual, I'm not usually in step with the majority thought in most cases ... 
Take it easy ... going to go watch ... Band of Brothers
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by wessongroup | The "spike" which is causing the "concern" ... isn't any of those .... those are BELOW that one line, which covers the time frame being discussed from
sampling and hence of no immediate concern to all life and/or all the environment as we know and understand it, at this time
The ice core sample represent the environment for over 650,00 years as it relates to "CO2" levels found in the atmosphere ... ya know the air
And the spike of concern, centers on 1950 when consumption of fossil fuels used increased about 10 million barrels a day
Or at lest that is the way I see and understand it ... which is unusual, I'm not usually in step with the majority thought in most cases ...
Take it easy ... going to go watch ... Band of Brothers |
I understand all of that. What I want to know now is what caused the other 5 spikes during all that time-----do we know, or have any ideas?
Barry
|
|
|
bezzell
Nomad
Posts: 444
Registered: 11-30-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by David K | | Norte, when just one volcano erupts, it dwarfs all of man's pollution in output... and volcanoes erupt all over the world since the beginning of time.
|
Is this a joke? Are you deliberately trying to present yourself as an out-of-touch joke?? What's going on here??
It's 2015, and you're still crying "the volcanos, the volcanos'"!! (???)
Volcanos have released not even 1% of what man has released, since we've been busy.
Over the eons ... YES the volcanos have released more than man has AND ever will ... but that's over a 4.5 billion period !!!
What's more ... the volcano effect is actually cooling.
Such a joke 
|
|
|
dtbushpilot
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3288
Registered: 1-11-2007
Location: Buena Vista BCS
Member Is Offline
Mood: Tranquilo
|
|
400,000 years ago is a pit stop in geologic time, let's look back a bit further...
http://www.biocab.org/Carbon_Dioxide_Geological_Timescale.ht...
"Life is tough".....It's even tougher if you're stupid.....
|
|
|
wessongroup
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21152
Registered: 8-9-2009
Location: Mission Viejo
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suicide Hot line ... please hold
|
|
Appear's just typing a response is getting harder and harder ... typed and then uploaded to Photobucket ..
Let us know what ya find out Barry.... I'm satisfied that there was a period of CO2 at the levels found through the ice sampling which were well below
the current levels and the projected increases based on science and/or sampling/monitoring of the planet by science at this time ...
|
|
|
Cliffy
Senior Nomad
Posts: 983
Registered: 12-19-2013
Member Is Offline
|
|
Many years ago there was a big climatic scare that the "ozone hole" was coming due to Freon. So we had to drop R-12 and go to now a third higher cost
refrigerant. BTW, we couldn't use butane/propane mix which is a better refrigerant than what we have now (along with no effect on the atmosphere)
because DuPont held all the patents on the new stuff AND B/P is far cheaper to use also.
So what ever happened to the big scare on the ozone hole????
Where did all the money go?
What ever happened to all the "research" being paid for by tax dollars on the ozone issue?
Did it just slide over to something else more newsworthy? Something else that needed funding to keep everyone busy and paid?
It's no different than carbon offsets that Gore is making money with!
Again, follow the money!
|
|
|
monoloco
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6667
Registered: 7-13-2009
Location: Pescadero BCS
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Cliffy | Many years ago there was a big climatic scare that the "ozone hole" was coming due to Freon. So we had to drop R-12 and go to now a third higher cost
refrigerant. BTW, we couldn't use butane/propane mix which is a better refrigerant than what we have now (along with no effect on the atmosphere)
because DuPont held all the patents on the new stuff AND B/P is far cheaper to use also.
So what ever happened to the big scare on the ozone hole????
Where did all the money go?
What ever happened to all the "research" being paid for by tax dollars on the ozone issue?
Did it just slide over to something else more newsworthy? Something else that needed funding to keep everyone busy and paid?
It's no different than carbon offsets that Gore is making money with!
Again, follow the money! |
Folks in Australia and New Zealand can tell you all about ozone depletion. They are
still suffering the effects of it.
"The future ain't what it used to be"
|
|
|
wessongroup
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21152
Registered: 8-9-2009
Location: Mission Viejo
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suicide Hot line ... please hold
|
|
As for the Ozone ... It was approach through Laws and Regulations which reduced the amount of materials that were depleting the Ozone, via compromise
between Industry and Government which were intended to provide for Production of Goods and Services without shutting down the entire world
Most of the data collected was in the 70s and was finally brought to center stage with the Montreal Protocol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion
And it wasn't just a couple of materials ... there were many which were giving problems to: soil, water, air and other forms of life ... and still are
Ask the Bee's ...
[Edited on 3-9-2015 by wessongroup]
|
|
|
Cliffy
Senior Nomad
Posts: 983
Registered: 12-19-2013
Member Is Offline
|
|
"In 1976 the United States National Academy of Sciences released a report concluding that the ozone depletion hypothesis was strongly supported by
the scientific evidence. Scientists calculated that if CFC production continued to increase at the going rate of 10% per year until 1990 and then
remain steady, CFCs would cause a global ozone loss of 5 to 7% by 1995, and a 30 to 50% loss by 2050. In response the United States, Canada and Norway
banned the use of CFCs in aerosol spray cans in 1978. However, subsequent research, summarized by the National Academy in reports issued between 1979
and 1984, appeared to show that the earlier estimates of global ozone loss had been too large."
So as I surmise from this paragraph from the Ozone Depletion article, CFCs were banned on bad or false information. Why then do we want to depend on
extrapolations today?
It's all done with extrapolations and estimates with short term observations by and with the help of special interest groups and NGOs (Greenpeace). If
the referenced article is read in its entirety(as I just did) it shows scare tactics and legal arm twisting by interested parties. Politics played
more of a hand than pure science
No one knows what the ozone layer looked like 200 or 300 million years ago. It could have been more or less than now. Over the life span of the Earth
things will change and man's input MAY have some influence but my question remains- Why is man considered something foreign in the process on the
world instead of just another natural phenomenon?
Again, the sky is not falling- follow the money!
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
..
11
12
13
14
15
..
25 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
