Global Warming a positive spin

[Shotout]

Seems that we've been through this all before. According to an AP story a Salt Lake City public park, This is the Place Heritage Park, sports a tree that is between 5,000-7,000 years old. 15 feet high this "scrub oak" is actually an ancient hybrid tree, part Live Oak, part Gamble Oak, it and several other such "scrub oaks" point to ancient climate cycles when the Great Basin was warmer and wetter. As climates cooled the tree's range retreated south to below the frost line, only a few such trees have survived north of this point in areas that are protected by natural features; inversion layers from the more severe winter cold and killing frosts while able to find water enough to survive from such features as natural springs. While botonist know that the species once populated northern Utah the climate now is not hospitable to these long lived trees.

And climate change is suppose to be caused by man? Maybe it was Buffalo flatuance and unwise stewardship by the Paleo Indians. Global warming, so easy even a cave man can cause it.

[Pres]

Yep, global warming is a hoax!

We dump billions of pounds of hydrocarbon contaminated ice crystals each year miles up into the stratosphere and it simply does not effect it.

We (humans) do it year after year for many decades at an increasing rate without permanently affecting the climate.

Its so simple, why do people think otherwise?

Pres

[Rekd]

Originally Posted by Pres Yep, global warming is a hoax! We dump billions of pounds of hydrocarbon contaminated ice crystals each year miles up into the stratosphere and it simply does not effect it. We (humans) do it year after year for many decades at an increasing rate without permanently affecting the climate. Its so simple, why do people think otherwise? Pres

There is a middle ground. Yes, humans have an effect. To what extent is still highly debated. So far it seems the effects are largely exaggerated to make it look like 1) the effects are catastrophic and 2) man is mostly to blame.

[Shotout]

Originally Posted by Rekd There is a middle ground.

My point exactly! Climate changes are cyclic, to what rate humans effect this rate just isn't know. We are talking about moving the frost line of a Continent over 200 miles north all before human populations could significantly effect anything as vast as the world climate. These are normal changes that may or may not be accelerated by human population.

Pres, there is no such thing as permanent changes to the climate, simple fact. Why I'm irritated with people on the global warming doom and gloom bandwagon is the same thing you are doing, speaking in absolutes. There are no absolutes concerning a changeable system containing so many known and unknown variables as climate. You simply can not speak in absolutes on a subject NO ONE actually understands in full.

Environmentalist are refusing to take extra terrestrial (no not aliens) factors into account. Jackson started a thread, Changes on Neptune Link Sun and Global Warming back in May. The thread restated scientific research that showed that the mean temp of our neighboring planets has been steadily increasing due to solar output at nearly an identical rate accepted by most scientist that the Earth's has. The Helios project reported a while back (1-2 yrs ago I believe) that they noted increased solar output ranging back to as long as they had meaningful data and that the sun would be under going a "significant" cyclic change in the fusion/fission cycle sometime in this century. Environmentalist blow off these facts and theories and focus solely on man. Why? Because it is an industry IMO. Nay sayers and doomsday prophets have always sensationalized natural events back to the first reported (European) sighting of Halley's comet. Why? To capitalize on the fear, through profit or control this is a historical fact. So yep I'm sceptical as heck about people speaking in absolutes and using the tactics of fear to gain power, history has taught me the lesson so I don't have to repeat it.

Atmospheric pollution needs to be controlled, but give me reasons I can get behind like my new born daughter's health. Tell me if this chemical isn't banned then yes, it is X% more likely that she will develop cancer and die prematuraly, but don't lie to me and tell me she'd better develop gills, figuratively speaking.

Scott

[Mariss Freimanis]

The earth's atmosphere weighs 5.5 * 10^15 tons. Let's call "billions of pounds of contaminated whatever a year" millions of tons. Let's even say it's 5.5 million tons a year to be generous.

Got a calculator?

5.5 * 10^15 divided by 5.5 * 10^6 is a billion years. It would take 1 million years to make a 0.1% concentration of "contaminated whatever", so yes, you can indeed add billions of pounds each year without effect. My question is how are you going to keep it all from falling back down while you go about your million-year long task?

Mariss

[Wade]

Your not suppose to disprove a whole religion with science and math. Mother nature will cast you into the tar pits.

So pres, you've got it all figured out. It's "hydrocarbon contaminated ice crystals" this week. What happened to acid rain, and carbon dioxide, and low level ozone, and freon gas, and ferrel pig farts. Isn't it true that lots of things increased at the same time global temperatures did. Maybe it was murcury in the water, or earth's population levels, or killer bees moving north, or the recovery of the whale population, or the number or Macy stores, black top roads, or agricultural waste, or deforestation, or just maybe solar output levels.

Why hydrocarbons?

Mariss, that's pretty convincing. 5,000 trillion metric tons versus 5 million metric tons. Few orders of magnitude difference. Wonder if Al Gore knows what an order of magnitude means?

[Mariss Freimanis]

The most useful key on my calculator is the 'EE' key.:-)

Mariss