feel better now!

[azruss]

Interesting conversation, boys.
I am science guy myself. I see the biggest effects of the industrial revolution is the pollution it adds to the cities, which is where most of us live. We fly on airplanes and have all observed the cloud of pollution that covers every major city.
It is also interesting to note that a single erupting volcano spews more CO2s in the atmosphere in a month than man has added in his entire existence.
The graph is very interesting. if you look at a 100 year chunk on the graph, you can find many places where the planetary temperature change mimics what we are experiencing today.
Unlike the last ice age, man has spread throughout the globe in great numbers and has lost his ability to adapt to the elements without the use of technology. The challenge will not be whether we can stop global warming and the oncoming ice age, but how will we survive it.

[surfingfreeman]

A couple of points worth noting, again the chart only goes back to 1950???????????????????? Has there been no loading in the atmosphere since then? Azruss you make a blanket statement saying that :

"It is also interesting to note that a single erupting volcano spews more CO2s in the atmosphere in a month than man has added in his entire existence."
Just wondering if you could cite your source?

I'm 45 years old did my undergraduate work in Environmental Science in which i got a Bachelors of Science degree, for the last 12 years i've worked for a major Ag. Biotech company working on various GMO projects, i have a great love for the out of doors, i started surfing in high school and have travelled around the globe in the search of the ultimate wave, during these travels i have made it a point to take side trips to explore the various cultures and the ways in which people co-exist in their environment. I also enjoy flyfishing which takes to places like the saltwater flats of Belize to the rugged interior of British Columbia in search of the elusive 20-30lb Steelhead.

Look at that way we have impacted our environment from the clear-cutting of huge tracts of rainforest in South-America (these trees play a major role in the CO2/O2 cycle) to the mass extintion of a great number of species of vertabrates and invertabrates. I'm at work but have much more to say on the subject. So let the conversation continue!

Mike

[Gunsmith]

Well at least the tones better

[RRoller123]

For the data points beyond 1950, you can add about 3 or 4 molecules of ink to the blot. Check out the scale at the bottom. 62 years is basically invisible.

[surfingfreeman]

yeah what do the guys at NASA know anyways, they're just a bunch of Engineers/Scientists/remember they put man on the moon, missions to mars etc etc
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003900/a003975/
the consensus among scientist is it's very real. But we can agree to disagree

"For the clueless or cynical diehards who deny global warming, it's getting awfully cold out there.

The latest icy blast of reality comes from an eminent scientist whom the climate-change skeptics once lauded as one of their own. Richard Muller, a respected physicist at the University of California, Berkeley, used to dismiss alarmist climate research as being "polluted by political and activist frenzy." Frustrated at what he considered shoddy science, Muller launched a study to set the record straight. Instead, the record set him straight.

"Global warming is real," Muller wrote last week in the Wall Street Journal.

Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann and others who are turning the GOP into the anti-science party should pay attention.



Read more: http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/com ... z23ed3Kukk

[djape1977]

very interesting story developing here, taking into account that most of you guys are from USA, the country with highest CO2 emmision per capita in the world.

interestingly enough, most people in the world somehow manage to get their daily chores done without using vehicles that consume 12mpg. in fact, at least in europe, anything that uses over 25mpg is considered anti-social. not even mentioning LPG and methane conversions.

these images haven't been photoshopped. does walking or transporting a pooch require an SUV?



or your weekly shopping really requires a vehicle with 2 ton load capacity? c'mon, you can fit it in a boot of a 124 sedan sized car, maybe even a spider



still, i firmly believe that all classic cars should be de-regulated as far as emmisions go, and that our daily runabouts should be green, and i don't mean green chevy suburban or hummer, but electric or hydrogen powered. at least get a 25mpg car.

and for those of you that don't believe that people cause changes in earth's athmosphere, do you remember the time when you could spend a day in the sun withouth suntan lotion with protective degree of 30 and you wouldn't get roasted as a lobster? i do.

[surfingfreeman]

Thank you djape1977, it was getting awfully lonely there. But it's funny I was talking to one of our senior level scientists at work discussing this forum topic and I said "Dan your a pretty good sounding board, what is your take on this whole global warming controversy", and he said "well to be honest I was a bit skeptical at first but as more and more studies and data has been amassed with better modeling programs etc etc it's hard to refute" and he added "but I walk the walk and that is why I ride my bike to work", something I don't do but could at which point I felt like a bit of a hypocrite????????

Hey RRoller123 I came upon this work/environmental ethic on a neat woodworking website, what are your thoughts on it in relation to the topic at hand???????

"True Green orientation

I strive to maintain a green business by using sustainable materials wherever possible, recommending and favoring low emmission finishes, and by minimizing and recycling as much excess and demolition materials as possible. My shop is designed, and I manage it, with careful attention to energy efficiency. During my hi-tech electronics career, I was an acknowledged industry leader in source-reduction pollution control efforts, installing in my factory what was at the time only the second closed-loop aqueous cleaning system in the United States to eliminate CFC and HCFC solvents. I have been a presenter at numerous seminars and have spoken at many industry events on waste minimization and pollution control subjects."

You ever read this before?

Just curious

[djape1977]

start small, on a level of daily things.
when offered a plastic or paper bag at your local store to put a bottle of water in, decline. you can carry it your hand. it doesn't matter that it's recyclable, just think how much energy it takes to recycle it!
junk your SUV and get a proper car.
install another layer of insulation on your house, you'll save a lot of money on your heating/cooling bill.
in fact, you might be able to say to your children or grandchildren in 20 years time that it was you that ended oil wars and global warming...

[RRoller123]

Yep, I did read (and write) that. I recycle all my waste (which admittedly is pretty minimal since I work alone) and the hardwood scraps are burned for heat by a neighbor in the Winter. I use water based finishes wherever possible, and don't have an airconditioned shop. Let see anything else? Oh yes, I installed what at the time was only the second closed loop SMT aqueous cleaning system in the world in my electronics manufacturing factory in 1989 in Billerica, Massachusetts. Northern Telecom was first, out in Santa Clara I think it was. Eliminated CFCs and HCFCs 100%, reduced all waste to VSQG status in a 125 person plant producing about 100,000 asemblies a year. All lead waste captured and recycled. By the way, my Engineering Degree is in Solar Engineering, (although there were no jobs so I went into electronics manufacturing.) I have no problems with my credentials, although others may.

But anyway, you all may want to check this out: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html This is pretty interesting, the data as presented here certainly show an increase in global average CO2. It can be assumed for sake of argument that the data is accurate.The annual PPM rate of change seems to have jumped around 1965. That is quite interesting and I am not sure what the significance is of that era, could be industrialization or something else. You would expect the coal burning era of the late 1800s into the mid-1900s to have had a far greater impact. It would also be interesting to see what correlation any of this has to volcanic activity, or changes in solar activity. But at any rate there is no question that CO2 levels are increasing. I personally think that the continuing deforestation of the Amazon (for cattle/corn/gold etc.) has a far greater impact on this than has been accepted by the intellectual developed world, and that this is based upon political reality. It rarely gets discussed. After all, what would we all do about it? Have a UN resolution to invade Brazil and replant jungles? It is a sticky problem, that makes academic elites uncomfortable, since developing nations and indigenous people should and do have the right to develop their resources and try to raise their standard of living. They just can't do it on debt like the rest of us have.

[surfingfreeman]

Commendable work RRoller123, now if only other companies took a vested interest and viewed it as good stewardship and a responsibility, nice points about the Amazon and who we are to try and set policy for other countries environmental agenda, it's like we've had the luxury to afford refrigerators multi-car families etc etc and yet we are telling these other countries "sorry you can't have these same things", boy with china and India and south America "coming of age" so to speak, what is going to happen to the environment then? The US is a meager 300 million with china and India we are talking billions!

[azruss]

i think most people that take a serious look at global warming realize that it is reality. The argument comes from whether all of us recycling, driving 40 mpg cars, etc. is going to arrest global warming.
It reminds me of graduate school in nuclear physics in the late 60s when nuclear power was the hot button of the day. I looked at it as an opportunity to see this subject discussed candidly amongst knowledable experts. Much to my surprise they split along the same lines as the general population. The separation came from each person's personal idea of what they considered safe.
When i see statements by science people about the output of volcanos and statements like "an ocean going container ship traveling from China to the US emits more pollution than all the cars is the US for a year" it makes me think that all this "save the environment" stuff we do so we can feel warm and fuzzy inside are doing very little to solve the issue.
I recycle, ride a bicycle when i can, am painting the fiat with waterbase, left the CAT on the car in a non-testing state, practice low water usage landscape, drive a propane vehicle, yada, yada, yada. I dont have the illusion that i am saving the world, just improving my local environment. My guess is if the whole world went back to living like primative man and all industrial activity stopped tomorrow, the only thing we are doing is delaying the arrival of the next ice age by 100 years or so. In that period of time we would watch the life expectancy of man to be cut in half. Funny how there is always a trade off.

[surfingfreeman]

Wow Azruss you studied nuclear physics in grad school, very cool. I think it does make a difference every little thing we do, with the cumulative effect being quite large. My work has me making genetically modified crops and my girlfriend hates the fact that I do this for a living as she is very much into organically grown food etc etc, but I think the reality of our modern food production agri-business complex is such that we need these GMO crops to feed the world, actually most of it goes to feed stock which is used to fatten up the cattle, but some of it goes into making basic ingredients like corn syrup etc etc. its interesting in the R&D pipeline for our company and competitors is drought tolerant crops in anticipation of water becoming a more scarce resource, as well as enabling farmers in arid climates to grow water hungry crops like corn and cotton and soy.

[surfingfreeman]

When i see statements by science people about the output of volcanos and statements like "an ocean going container ship traveling from China to the US emits more pollution than all the cars is the US for a year" it makes me think that all this "save the environment" stuff we do so we can feel warm and fuzzy inside are doing very little to solve the issue.

Where do these statements/numbers/figures come from? The container ship one doesn't even pass the common sense test??????????? I mean come on!

[spidernut]

The science behind pollution caused by a volcanic eruption is extremely easy to find. You simply have to look at all the data, not just the data that supports your views. Here's an article from the Seattle Times regarding Mt. St. Helens and its environmental impact. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/l ... no01m.html

The objections to the global warming controversy isn't really about whether the global temperatures have risen since we started measuring them (which is a blip on the radar of earth's history), but what affect mankind has had on those temperature rises. We know that CO2 levels increase along with temperatures, but why? Go back to the chart that I posted. You're focusing on the fact the data ended in 1950 when it goes back 400,000 years....that is .000125th of the total amount of time measured. This is why many people and scientists have issues with the global warming issue. Consider the rises and falls in temperatures over the entire 400,000 year period. Man had no significant impact on any of the historical temperature rises prior to the 1800s...but there are significant rises and falls in temperature for 100,000s of years prior to that. Again, why?

Man has an impact on this planet - there is no doubt. We should be working toward neutralizing our impact as much as possible, but with a science based on fact not emotions and doomsday predictions.

If you really want to fix the problem of man's impact on the environment, take it seriously and do something personal and extreme to set an example: Move closer to work and walk (dump the cars), install solar, geothermal and wind energy and get off the grid, stop buying any items with CFCs, plastics, lead, cadmium, mercury or other chemically-based products that contribute to pollution in China where it is all manufactured, let you lawn die, plant native plants only, stop all artificial watering, buy your food fresh daily and dump the refrigerator and freezer, go macrobiotic or cook your food only with green electricity, get rid of the propane, natural gas, or heating oil heaters, etc. Serious problems require extreme solutions to reverse a trend. All of these things are plausible and possible, but are you personally willing to implement them in your own life? I think not.

There's a good reason that this argument has continued on in the scientific world as long as it has. You only have to go back to the 1950s and 1960s to remember Stage 3 smog alerts when you couldn't see 1/8 mile through the smog. That no longer exists due to environmental regulations. There's still smog, there will always be smog (look up the cause of the Great Smokey Mountains).

The same science that said we were headed into a global ice age back then says we're going to become fried potatoes now. Our science isn't perfect - in fact it is far from it. We need to do what we can to minimize our impact, but stay civil and look at all of the evidence pro and con without becoming extremist on either end of the spectrum.

In the meantime, I'm going to get ready for work and drive my Spider with the top down for the entire 37 minute drive. I'll breathe in deeply the fresh, cool and crisp 64 degree morning air, admire the beautiful morning sun as it rises on the horizon and thank God for another beautiful day on this rock we call Earth.

[maytag]

I know only what I read on the science. I'm not a scientist. But I am a guy who reads people and their motivations for a living. Why do we do what we do? And even more pertinent: how do we make people do what we want them to do?

The whole global warming debate STINKS of Machiavellian prose. Put aside whether the science is real: it is being used to further political agendas, which have no impact (or in many cases even a connection to) the problems being cited.

I resent the idea that we as a race should hate ourselves. But I resent even more the idea proffered earlier in this very thread: that American's should hate themselves the most.

I believe in doing my part for the environment, as long as it is convenient and doesn't get in the way of what I really want to do. I suspect that sounds arrogant, until you take it in context with what we see from the activists: flying their jets from rally to rally, with 2 passengers and a crew of 4. Or limo rides to the airport. (Heaven forbid they practice what they preach!) I care about the planet, and what our legacy to our children will be relative to the environment. But I do not believe (based on what I read) that the things we are asked to do in the name of the environment have any impact whatsoever on global climate. Does recycling reduce landfill? Sure. And that's a great cause. But don't tell me that it's irresponsible of me to put my children and wife in the largest, heaviest, safest vehicle I possibly can, to protect them in the event of an accident.

And lastly: I lived in Europe for 4 years; if it;s such a better, more responsible lifestyle: why are there so many goiters?