The Official Global Warming/Climate Change Thread

[Psycho_Teddy 25]

Originally posted by: schm0

Originally posted by: Psycho_Teddy Allow me to further explain my point.  Listed below are links to two different sites on the NOAA website.  The first is a map for Air quality for the US, the second is a temperature readout, in ferenheit.  Take note of the ares with poor air quality, and those with high temperatures, and you will see quite a trend.  Ohio, North and South Carolina, and Colorado, all have fair and poor air quality today, and also abnormally high temperatures today.  I hope this drives the point home, here.

The Air Quality map:

http://www.weather.gov/aq/

The Temperature map:

http://www.weather.gov/climate/

[EDIT: When you look at the air quality map, have a looksee at the 11am reading, then mouse over to 5pm, you will notice that the Dayton/Springfield area of Ohio (southwest Ohio) as some of the highest concentrations in the nation right now, and we are setting record temperatures today]

Enjoy...quote>

Global mean temperatures have increased since temperatures were recorded.  Perhaps this is not an isolated event, just relegated to Ohio, North and South Carolina and Colorado? I live in Detroit, and last week we had temperatures in the 80's which set records as well. They had to abort the Chicago Marathon because of over-exerted racers due to the record-high temperatures, and one man died of heart failure during the race. 250+ people had to hospitalized because of this phenomenon.  Yes, this is likely true, I was just trying to point out an event that was going on during that day, but yes, it is a global trend... I wasn't trying to say its just the east coast and the midwest that have global warming issues...

Originally posted by: saltandsauce the way it has been is temperature increases for whatever reason then carbon dioxide follows it due to the increased number of animals and such this is the same case now temperature goes up first THEN carbon dioxide emissions

plus hybrid cars are the leading polluter of smug

take the bus like a scaffquote>

If you could cite a source, I would gladly look into this completely ridiculous falsehood. So would I, lol.

Originally posted by: confused04 Please refrain from using "American" as a negative term, its offensive and ignorant.

Second... ignorance is not limited to Americans, I have found that it is global and European policies are highly quite misleading anyway.quote>

I second this motion. Not all Americans are bumbling idiots who believe in destroying the environment.

I do agree that sourcing would really help any arguments made.

...High temperatures reduce air quality.  If you note air quality versus season, air quality decreases in the summer due to the temperature.  I don't exactly know the mechanism at this instant, but many of the chemicals that cause low air quality form at higher temperatures and in the presence of high UV (photo-oxidation of ozone).quote>

Higher temperatures mean more people using their car and home air conditioners, which in turn demands more energy to be produced, both of which release more smog and other toxins into the air. [SOURCE]

Originally posted by: Psycho_Teddy

Second... ignorance is not limited to Americans, I have found t

[ShortStraw 1]

This thread is veering all over the place, heh.

As far as I can tell the finger of blame here points squarely at Big Oil.  The Big Oil conglomerates are richer and more powerful than any single nation.  They control entire governments.  They control public opinion through media manipulation.  They are why the west has joined in the wars in the Middle East, They are why Pollution is rampant globally.  Their version of damage control is to stifle concerns about global warming.  No matter what they may say, the Big Oil interests do not want to reduce dependency on any oil, foreign or otherwise, for any reason.  And they're the ones in charge. 

We as individuals are dependent on Big Oil to run our countries, supply us with power, transportation, all manner of goods and services...until we figure out a way to reduce or preferably eliminate our dependence on Oil Companies then we will continue to face these problems.  As long as we continue to blame the consumer, the auto manufacturer or any particular national government then we are being successfully distracted away from the real source of our problems with global warming, pollution and in some cases, war.

[schm0 27]

Originally posted by: ShortStraw This thread is veering all over the place, heh.quote>

Dig up the old threads on this from last year. This is nothing.

[TheCrybKeeper 301]

Has anyone in this thread, remembered to add in the global dimming factor?

Seriously, this is a valid issue and our attempts to curb global warming, by releasing less air polluting particles, will undoubtedly decrease the dim factor by three fold, thus increasing global warming at three times the current rate.

Electric cars and solar panels are needed, but we had better brace ourselves for the intense consequence that will occur first, before things begin to get better.

[schm0 27]

Well, I think the focus of global dimming is to bring more attention to the issues, since the theory surrounding the dimming process basically masks the effects of global warming. The fact remains we are pumping a deadly amount of toxic gases into the atmosphere.

[coolotter88 2]

CO2 is not a toxin.

[schm0 27]

Originally posted by: coolotter88 CO2 is not a toxin.quote>

I was wondering when you'd show up.

Since we're splitting hairs:

TOXIN

Main Entry: tox·in 

Pronunciation: \?täk-s?n\

Function: noun

Etymology: International Scientific Vocabulary

Date:1886

: a poisonous substance that is a specific product of the metabolic activities of a living organism and is usually very unstable, notably toxic when introduced into the tissues, and typically capable of inducing antibody formation

An example of carbon dioxide having toxin-like properties is what is known as hypercapnia.  From the article, hypercapnia is "

a condition where there is too much carbon dioxide (CO₂) in the blood. Carbon dioxide is a gaseous product of the body's metabolism and is normally expelled through the lungs." (Not quite a toxin, but close. ) Further on in the article: "...It may also be caused by exposure to environments containing abnormally high concentrations of carbon dioxide ..."

TOXIC

Main Entry:¹tox·ic

Pronunciation:\?täk-sik\

Function:adjective

Etymology:Late Latin toxicus, from Latin toxicum poison, from Greek toxikon arrow poison, from neuter of toxikos of a bow, from toxon bow, arrow

Date:1664

1 : containing or being poisonous material especially when capable of causing death or serious debilitation <toxic waste> <a toxic radioactive gas> <an insecticide highly toxic to birds> 2 : exhibiting symptoms of infection or toxicosis <the patient became toxic two days later>

3 : extremely harsh, malicious, or harmful <toxic sarcasm>

Too much carbon dioxide is harmful to the environment, specifically concerning it's effects on atmosphere and it's role as a greenhouse gas. Source: Venus.

Definition Sources: Mirriam-Webster Online

Furthermore, I was not merely referring to carbon dioxide. There are plenty of other pollutants that contribute to global warming, acid rain and other harmful ecological and environmental problems.

[Psycho_Teddy 25]

Originally posted by: coolotter88 CO2 is not a toxin.quote>

Well SOMEONE didn't pay attention in chemistry...  Take a look at the MSDS for CO2 (Thats, Material Safety Data Sheet)

Source for the proceding: http://www.vngas.com/pdf/g8.pdf

"Carbon dioxide is the most powerful cerebral vasodilator known.  Inhaling large concentrations causes rapid

circulatory insufficiency leading to coma and death. Asphyxiation is likely to occur before the effects of carbon

dioxide overexposure. Chronic, harmful effects are not known from repeated inhalation of low concentrations.

Low concentrations of carbon dioxide cause increased respiration and headache.

Effects of oxygen deficiency resulting from simple asphyxiants may include: rapid breathing, diminished mental

alertness, impaired muscular coordination, faulty judgement, depression of all sensations, emotional instability,

and fatigue. As asphyxiation progresses, nausea, vomiting, prostration, and loss of consciousness may result,

eventually leading to convulsions, coma, and death.

Oxygen deficiency during pregnancy has produced developmental abnormalities in humans and experimental

animals."

Not hazardous, huh?

[coolotter88 2]

yes and water is dangerous because you can die by inhaling that too.

=/ the second definition seems to be less scientific, i'll stick with the first.

[Psycho_Teddy 25]

Originally posted by: coolotter88 yes and water is dangerous because you can die by inhaling that too.

=/ the second definition seems to be less scientific, i'll stick with the first.quote>

I cited sources from a chemical supplier, how much more science do you need?  And, considering that you were wrong in the first place, I'll stick with both, because I was merely backing up the previous statement with more info.

-- Edited. You are breaking the rules by flaming others. Keep bad comments to yourself. - Mike

May I suggest a moderator lock, since this thread seems to be going to hell in a handbasket, here?

-- No, this thread will not be locked.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[schm0 27]

Originally posted by: Psycho_Teddy

-- Edited. You are breaking the rules by flaming others. Keep bad comments to yourself. - Mikequote>

Sometimes you just have to roll with the punches, Teddy. Fight fire with facts, that's my motto.

May I suggest a moderator lock, since this thread seems to be going to hell in a handbasket, here?quote>

Boo!

-- No, this thread will not be locked. quote>

Yay!

Long live the Global Warming thread!

Back on topic, what does everyone think of Al Gore and the Nobel Peace Prize?

[Mikeaut1 261]

Originally posted by: schm0

Back on topic, what does everyone think of Al Gore and the Nobel Peace Prize?quote>

I think he deserved it! He's done a lot of work and has had a huge influence on the global warming issue.

[Psycho_Teddy 25]

Agreed, he has done a lot, despite much criticism from his opponents.  Good job big Al!

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

With all due respect to Al Gore and his colleagues, let us not forget Rachel Carson. (Silent Spring)

[SimFox 804]

Well I think he is sort of face of the issue particularly in the US so in some way he if not deserve it but at least is somehow justified.

an illustration for the topic point:

[Psycho_Teddy 25]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa Well, good for him, but in a way it is an insult to the thousands of scientists who did all the work. I agree it is something to bring more attention to the issue, but it is also another "I created the internet" type of thing. He didn't DO anything. It kind of falls flat for me. I support climate change and his film did nothing to reinforce my opinion.

Barbarossa

quote>

But he is the one that put this information into lay terms for the rest of the world ti understand, not into scientific lingo that the average person cannot.  This is what he has been acreditted for.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[mikeseith 469]

Since we are not plants, we should not be living in a greenhouse.

Barbarossaquote>

You should be happy we do live in a greenhouse.  Without the greenhouse effect we would all be dead now...

[schm0 27]

Originally posted by: mikeseith

You should be happy we do live in a greenhouse.  Without the greenhouse effect we would all be dead now...quote>

I think most of us got the gist of what he was saying. Nobody denies that the greenhouse effect plays a very essential role for life to exist on our planet. I don't think Barbarossa's comment was meant to recommend we live in a cold and barren vacuum, devoid of heat.

Originally posted by: Barbarossa Well, good for him, but in a way it is an insult to the thousands of scientists who did all the work. I agree it is something to bring more attention to the issue, but it is also another "I created the internet" type of thing. He didn't DO anything. It kind of falls flat for me. I support climate change and his film did nothing to reinforce my opinion.

Barbarossa

quote>

As far as reinforcing one's opinion, I don't think that was the intent of his film. I view his film as a snapshot of scientific research, one which puts the facts in a presentation that is plain and understandable. If anything, he has entrenched the anti-Al crowd and has spurred several "documentaries" that purport junk science or attempt to debunk the facts presented in "An Inconvenient Truth."

And, unfortunately, not everyone in the country (the U.S.) watches PBS, surfs the Sierra Club website daily, or subscribes to (and reads) a major newspaper. The typical American is content to watch American Idol, surf the web for the latest shots of Britney Spears' crotch, or subscribe to US Weekly. *sigh*)

As far as Al Gore is concerned, I believe he has done something: he's brought environmental issues to the forefront of politics and to the television sets of a global audience. Perhaps, some might say, more than any other before him. Every man has his faults, and I'm sure we could find similar flaws in limitless variety in countless other positions of power, popularity and/or influence.

To dislike the man for his popularity (or misstatements) alone is one thing, but I believe Al Gore embodies a leader who has brought the movement to a new level. Most likely, history will remember him as a significant figure of influence who took his status as a politician and activist and used it to bring awareness and discussion to the global environmental issues of the day.

Just my two pennies.

Furthermore, the Nobel was shared with the IPCC.

From the above link:

THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE FOR 2007

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 is to be shared, in two equal parts, between the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.

Indications of changes in the earth’s future climate must be treated with the utmost seriousness, and with the precautionary principle uppermost in our minds. Extensive climate changes may alter and threaten the living conditions of much of mankind. They may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth’s resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world’s most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states.

Through the scientific reports it has issued over the past two decades, the IPCC has created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming. Thou

[Psycho_Teddy 25]

^^Fantastic post!^^

[Palpatine001 57]

And I still see this thread going round and round

Anycase Al Gore and the Nobel Prize - no comment

As for bio fuels to get us off oil and and mitigate climatic change - damn that is a good one I must say

So lets decide to starve the world and cut down more of the Amazon...

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

I'm with Barbarossa... But I'll go even farther(and more derisive). Giving Gore the prize was like giving Michael Moore the prize in Medicine for Sicko.

I still remember the Chinese 'funny money' scandal, with briefcases of cash being transferred in diplomatic pouches from Beijing to the White House. The FBI got sworn affidavits from several people that both Algore and Hillary were involved. But then the whole thing died. Remember Charlie Trie?

Not that this has much to do with Global Warming, mind you. Just Gore's credibility.

Ooooh, I'm gonna hear it now! But hey, Hitler was nominated for the same prize in '33, and Arafat won his own Nobel Seal of Approval. It means a lot less in the past 40 years or so. The Peace Prize isn't the Physics or Medicine Prize.

[coolotter88 2]

yeah, ethanol is extremely bad because it raises food prices across the board and less corn for foreign aid but I mean, we don't really need to care about poor african countries right? they're third world for god's sake!

[Micah 16]

I'm with Barbarossa... But I'll go even farther(and more derisive). Giving Gore the prize was like giving Michael Moore the prize in Medicine for Sicko.quote>

I personally don't think the Nobel Peace Prize should be taken seriously. Hitler, Castro, and Stalin have all won the award. After all, the founder of the Nobel Peace Prize, Alfred Nobel, is the inventor of dynamite.

[schm0 27]

Originally posted by: Palpatine001 And I still see this thread going round and round

Anycase Al Gore and the Nobel Prize - no comment

As for bio fuels to get us off oil and and mitigate climatic change - damn that is a good one I must say

So lets decide to starve the world and cut down more of the Amazon...quote>

and

Originally posted by: coolotter88 yeah, ethanol is extremely bad because it raises food prices across the board and less corn for foreign aid but I mean, we don't really need to care about poor african countries right? they're third world for god's sake!quote>

Personally, I think of fossil fuels (or any form of hydrocarbon or polluting fuel source) as a humunguous beaver dam holding back the flood of an energy crisis. Bio-fuels are merely a finger in one of the many holes of the dam. We need clean, renewable energy to propel us into the beginning of the twenty-first century, not stop-gaps.

Originally posted by: manticorefan

I'm with Barbarossa... But I'll go even farther(and more derisive). Giving Gore the prize was like giving Michael Moore the prize in Medicine for Sicko.quote>

I hardly think comparing a Powerpoint presentation with accompanying dialogue to Mr. Moore's (a Michigan native, by the way) sensationalist documentaries is an apt comparison.

I still remember the Chinese 'funny money' scandal, with briefcases of cash being transferred in diplomatic pouches from Beijing to the White House. The FBI got sworn affidavits from several people that both Algore and Hillary were involved. But then the whole thing died. Remember Charlie Trie?

quote>

And yet you act as if no action were ever taken on the matter. A total of 22 people were brought to justice from the charges. Perhaps you're misrepresenting the facts here. Al Gore and Hilary Clinton were never indicted because there was no evidence with which to convict them. There is a fine line between "mentioned in an affidavit" and "indicted" or "convicted."

Not that this has much to do with Global Warming, mind you.quote>

*sound of hammer hitting the head of a nail*

Just Gore's credibility.quote>

So, the words coming out of Al Gore's mouth are incredible and not to be trusted?

I think credibility lends itself to the subject at hand. I would not find Al Gore very credible if he were to be giving a Powerpoint presentation on the history of gangster rap. In the case of global climate change, his role in the legislative and executive branches of government and as an activist give him the experience and credibility you too quickly dismiss.

Ooooh, I'm gonna hear it now! But hey, Hitler was nominated for the same prize in '33, and Arafat won his own Nobel Seal of Approval. It means a lot less in the past 40 years or so. The Peace Prize isn't the Physics or Medicine Prize.quote>

[sarcasm]

Yeah, you're so right. The Dalai Llama, Mother Teresa, Jimmy Carter, Kofi Annan, Nelson Mandela, the United Nations Peacekeeping Forces, the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, and Amnesty I

[KingTitan 6]

I am curious to know what all the members that have commented and know exactely what is going about Global warming....What are you doing about it persanally to help with the problem?

Curious Mind here.

[ShortStraw 1]

Originally posted by: KingTitan I am curious to know what all the members that have commented and know exactely what is going about Global warming....What are you doing about it persanally to help with the problem?

Curious Mind here. quote>

Not nearly enough I'm sure.   I try not to be wasteful with energy.  I turn lights off in unoccupied rooms, turn my PC off when I'm not using it.  My residence is well insulated so I don't have to use much climate control to keep the place comfortable.  My electric bill is about 1/3rd of what most of my friends pay.  Still, I mostly do these things to keep my electric bill low.  It's a happy accident that it's also good for the environment.

I re-use plastic bottles and containers.  My community doesn't have a recycling program (I live in the Bible Belt of the U.S., an overwhelmingly conservative area that denies evolution and global warming.  An official recycling program would be like a validation of environmental concerns and the folks around here consider environmentalists to be godless and dangerously "un-American").  Once again though, my primary motivation is just to reduce my garbage output so I don't have to take the trash out as often.  Another situation where my desires just happen to coincide with environmental responsibility,

I drive as little as possible.  I have to drive because there is no public transportation here, pretty much for the same reason there is no recycling program.  I generally hold off on driving anywhere until I can run multiple errands in one trip.  And again, I have no place on the "High Horse" here.  I'm mostly just being stingy about gasoline expenses.  I hate buying gasoline because every time I do I feel like I'm supporting Oil interests and I hate those folks. 

Maybe the most conscious and intentional effort I make to personally "fight global warming" is to represent the facts as I understand them in public debates and discussions on the issue.  It's alarming how many local folks do not believe in Global Warming.  Most of the people I know get their news from FOX NEWS, which is somewhat derisive about the whole issue.  My voice is rarely heard though, I've been pigeonholed locally as a "Bleedin heart librul" because I drive a small car instead of an S.U.V, I don't attend a Baptist church and my daughter loudly and vehemently opposes the Iraq war in her public school debates.

Oh yeah, I try to purchase "green" products when I'm shopping but I don't know how much good that does.  It feels like I'm just being a sucker to effective marketing strategies, heh.

So yeah, overall I don't think I do enough to personally ease global warming but I probably do more than anyone I personally know.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa