|
Home > Archive > Alternative Power sources > November 2006 > Re: The end of the world as we know it starts now.
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Re: The end of the world as we know it starts now.
|
|
|
|
Derek Broughton wrote:
> Anthony Matonak wrote:
>
>
> I'm not sure I agree with you on the first, but definitely agree with the
> latter. Massive extinctions have happened more than once, and have killed
> off more species than we'll be able to manage by ourselves, but if we
> manage to kill off a billion people, I'd consider that pretty "massive".
> I'd be _very_ surprised if we don't do that. I'll be moderately surprised
> if a billion survive our climate modification. I doubt we'll even wipe out
> our civilization, such as it is.
> --
> derek
.... "but the reality is that there isn't going to be a massive die-off"
....
In whose's lifetime? If you had a choice of being born today or not
being born today, which would you choose?
| |
| Dan Bloomquist 2006-11-14, 3:25 am |
|
Pat wrote:
>
> ... "but the reality is that there isn't going to be a massive die-off"
> ...
How do you know? This has been questioned. Make a claim often enough and
it does not become reality. Back it up with some numbers....
| |
|
|
"Dan Bloomquist" <public21@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
news:POc6h.5362$Ka1.2304@news01.roc.ny...
>
>
> Pat wrote:
>
>
> How do you know? This has been questioned. Make a claim often enough and
> it does not become reality. Back it up with some numbers....
> //............
Well my opinion is we will see millions die within the next ten years , the
causes will be storms,flooding, some starvation and disease steming directly
from global warming.
New Orleans just abandon it.
Bangladesh is a disaster waiting to happen, and I bet it will in the next
ten years, and many more places just like it on a smaller scale.
Governments and scientists are giving us bull,
Global warming is exponential which they seem to ignore, which means it will
get bad fast.
Plus just like the good Dr. I had a dream.
>
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-11-14, 9:25 am |
| Pat wrote:
>
> Derek Broughton wrote:
>
>
> ... "but the reality is that there isn't going to be a massive die-off"
> ...
Please try to quote appropriately, since I clearly never said that.
>
> In whose's lifetime? If you had a choice of being born today or not
> being born today, which would you choose?
What's your point? Even _if_ there's going to be a massive die-off (I can't
tell whether you're pro- or anti- that position), and it occurs in my
lifetime, I'd rather be alive now than not.
--
derek
| |
|
|
"Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
news:9sso24-fio.ln1@news.pointerstop.ca...[color=darkred]
> Pat wrote:
>
>
> Please try to quote appropriately, since I clearly never said that.
>
> What's your point? Even _if_ there's going to be a massive die-off (I
> can't
> tell whether you're pro- or anti- that position), and it occurs in my
> lifetime, I'd rather be alive now than not.
> --
> derek
Well on the whole I really enjoy life and would rather it stay that way for
some time , although most of my life is behind not in front of me.
Death is inevitable but later please.
I do hate being lied too,the truth being stretched and reasoning obscured.
You all are being lied to by them that should know better, basicly because
they have no control or don't want any, take your pick.
Global warming is charging on, the problems that relate to global warming
are multiplying,
yet politicians will tell you otherwise, it is coming thundering down the
road to get you, and we may well have gone past the point of being able to
put the brakes on.
| |
| Joe Fischer 2006-11-14, 1:25 pm |
| On Tue, "danny" <rebel@prosof.net> wrote:
>"Dan Bloomquist" <public21@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
>news:POc6h.5362$Ka1.2304@news01.roc.ny...
>
>Well my opinion is we will see millions die within the next ten years ,
Why not, millions have died in the last ten years,
from AIDS.
>the causes will be storms,flooding, some starvation
Not very likely, but possible, there have been floods
in Asia in the last 150 years that killed more than a million
per flood.
>and disease steming directly from global warming.
Disease is caused by things other than warm
temperatures, in fact a lot of deaths are due to cold.
>New Orleans just abandon it.
Why, it was below seal level when it was built,
so nothing has changed, they were just lucky before
that the path of a strong hurricane always missed.
>Bangladesh is a disaster waiting to happen, and I bet it will in the next
>ten years, and many more places just like it on a smaller scale.
Any country where there are militants and
liberals wanting to control the country by any means
possible will see strife and pestilence, the militants
are the pests.
>Governments and scientists are giving us bull,
It isn't very likely that all scientists agree with
any government.
>Global warming is exponential which they seem to ignore,
>which means it will get bad fast.
Could they please hurry it up a little, I am
getting tired of every day being 10 degrees below normal.
>Plus just like the good Dr. I had a dream.
Sounds more like a nightmare. :-)
When temperatures can swing 30 degrees F
within 24 hours, a 0.6 degree C change in estimated
global average does not indicate anything other than
data variation and not enough data points or frequency.
Surely we have a couple of years to get more
and better data, more often, and at more locations.
Joe Fischer
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-11-14, 1:25 pm |
| Joe Fischer wrote:
> Surely we have a couple of years to get more
> and better data, more often, and at more locations.
It's not going to give us any better data than we already have. That's the
politician's answer: give us more time (and money) to study the issue...
--
derek
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-11-14, 1:25 pm |
| Pat wrote:
> Derek Broughton wrote:
>
> derek asked: ... "What's your point?" ...
>
> I'll use this example to make my point. I'm in my early 30s. If I think
> a massive die-off is going to happen before the end of this century I
> would not start a family of my own regardless of how badly I wanted to
> have children.
Long before I heard of global warming, I'd made the decision that it was
irresponsible to bring more children into a world where huge numbers of
children die of poverty related causes. The desire to have children has
always struck me as supremely selfish.
> The people being born today don't have a choice of live
> or not live because other people make that choice for them.
Nothing has changed about that - it has been and always will be the case.
> People
> decide to have a family because they want to have children, but are
> they thinking at all about the quality of life their children would
> have when the children reach adulthood or old age?
Many are.
> Is my point clear now?
As mud. You've still left it fairly unclear whether you believe that there
will be a "massive die-off" of humanity. You've explained that you
wouldn't bring children into the world now, but not how _you_ feel about
being alive now. I'm happy to be alive. I won't be having children.
--
derek
| |
| Eeyore 2006-11-14, 1:25 pm |
|
danny wrote:
> Global warming is charging on, the problems that relate to global warming
> are multiplying,
> yet politicians will tell you otherwise
Not in the UK they won't !
Graham
| |
| Joe Fischer 2006-11-14, 1:25 pm |
| On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 13:16:16 -0400, Derek Broughton
<news@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>Joe Fischer wrote:
>
>It's not going to give us any better data than we already have.
So now is the moment for kneejerk reactionaries
to take over the world?
>That's the
>politician's answer: give us more time (and money) to study the issue...
No more money is needed, just do what you can,
and accept whatever nature has to dish out.
If global warming doesn't happen, you always have
the asteroid of 2028 to worry about.
Joe Fischer
| |
| Joe Fischer 2006-11-14, 1:25 pm |
| On 14 Nov 2006 "T.Keating" <tkgoogle@ktcnslt.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 11:37:18 -0500, Joe Fischer
><joe@westpointracing.com> wrote:
>Snip.. blowing you horn again..
I suppose there is a connection between global
warming and renewable energy, but if the governments
of the world don't have enough facts to act together,
then what can I do but ignore the whole thing like
the wonderful United Nations ignore Kafur.
>
>Your weather..
>http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin...:KSDF&almanac=1
Not hardly, the temperature in the city and especially
near the airport and the NWS office is almost always 6 or 8
degrees warmer than here.
>Still under a positive 100 heating degree day delta since July 1.
> and just about average for the month of November..
Your heating degree days are skewed and are not
related to the actual hour by hour temperature.
There is no way that zero "heating degree days"
can translate to "normal" average temperatures.
> And not even close to making up for the negative 536 heating degree
>day delta since January 1, 2006. (or the excess cooling degree days.)
There is nothing to "make up", it was warm in the
last part of the winter and early spring, and I paid my
heating bill, and we are even.
It was lucky that the weather turned mild, else people
in the entire midwest and northeastern US would have paid
hundreds of dollars more that they did not have for inflated
prices of natural gas.
>ref..
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt....2e?dmode=source
>
>Again.. you've made another deceptive statement not supported by the
>facts, ~2 weeks after being exposed for your last factual deception...
Nothing has been exposed, you use an arbitrary term
"heating degree days" as a base, which is not related to normal
temperatures, or even to the temperature that causes me to
use space heating.
We had 2 or 3 days well above normal (but not a record
for the date), and almost all the rest have been well below normal.
> Is your nose growing any longer?
Probably.
>There is very little value of debating persons who make deceptive
>statements and ignore the obvious facts.
There isn't anything to debate, it is colder than normal,
it is colder than I like, and I would be very happy with just
normal weather.
If I mention degree days below normal, I mean outdoor
temperature readings, not some arbitrary term selected by
the HVAC groups.
Most of the data being discussed today was from a very
unusual year with lots of moisture coming from the tropics,
and this year was especially tame, so the data will change
promptly, and I am sorry if it doesn't support any special
groups agenda to take over the world.
Joe Fischer
| |
| Windsun 2006-11-14, 1:25 pm |
| Most of us think that your opinion is about 19 bricks short of an outhouse
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"danny" <rebel@prosof.net> wrote in message
news:4559a992$0$11280$a8266bb1@reader.corenews.com...
>
> "Dan Bloomquist" <public21@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
> news:POc6h.5362$Ka1.2304@news01.roc.ny...
> Well my opinion is we will see millions die within the next ten years ,
> the causes will be storms,flooding, some starvation and disease steming
> directly from global warming.
> New Orleans just abandon it.
> Bangladesh is a disaster waiting to happen, and I bet it will in the next
> ten years, and many more places just like it on a smaller scale.
> Governments and scientists are giving us bull,
> Global warming is exponential which they seem to ignore, which means it
> will get bad fast.
> Plus just like the good Dr. I had a dream.
>
>
| |
| Joe Fischer 2006-11-14, 5:25 pm |
| On 14 Nov 2006 12:49:30 -0800, "T.Keating" <tkgoogle@ktcnslt.com> wrote:
>Your claim of fact is still negated..
What claim? It has been colder than normal more
days than I wanted, I watch the weather news every day,
and compare the temperature to the normal.
> I.E. Applying a constant delta between two nearby locations would
>carry backwards in time across both data sets.
I have no idea what your game is or what your agenda
is, I know when it is colder than normal, and I remember those
days more than I remember warmer than normal this time
of year.
http://weather.marylandweather.com/....html?almanac=1
It would be kind of dumb to subtract one from
the other, unless there is a desire to ignore the days that
are not normal.
[color=darkred]
>You made the claim "every day being 10 degrees below normal" in an
>effort to bolster your argument. That statement was a LIE..
>
>Snip.. divergence from issue..
The days when it was 10 or 20 degrees below normal
are not offset by the days when it was warmer than normal,
I still feel cold, and I have to pay for the heat I need, they
don't give me credit for the warmer than normal days.
Maybe you can be more clear what your position is,
do you want everybody to be hysterical and park their
car, and turn off the heat at home and sit around and cry?
Am I correct in thinking the whole of the big deal
about global warming is 0.6 degrees Celsius over the last
150 years (according to tree ring estimates)?
Joe Fischer
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-11-15, 9:25 am |
| Joe Fischer wrote:
> There isn't anything to debate, it is colder than normal,
> it is colder than I like, and I would be very happy with just
> normal weather.
>
> If I mention degree days below normal, I mean outdoor
> temperature readings, not some arbitrary term selected by
> the HVAC groups.
Heating degree days are hardly arbitrary. It's precisely related to the
amount of central heating you need. It may be cold where you are, but it's
running about 8C warmer than norms here. Just because it's cold where you
are doesn't do a thing to counteract any argument for global warming.
--
derek
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-11-15, 9:25 am |
| Joe Fischer wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 13:16:16 -0400, Derek Broughton
> <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>
>
> So now is the moment for kneejerk reactionaries
> to take over the world?
No, now is the time for politicians to do what they always do - bury their
heads in the sand, because it almost certainly won't get really bad while
they're in office.
>
>
> No more money is needed, just do what you can,
> and accept whatever nature has to dish out.
I agree about the "no more money", but tell that to the folks in New
Orleans. Now, actually reducing greenhouse gasses doesn't have to cost
money, but nobody will do anything about it. It may or may not matter in
the end, but can it really be _good_ to pump all this CO2 (and worse stuff)
into the air?
--
derek
| |
| Nick Hull 2006-11-18, 9:25 am |
| In article <1163532153.550562.237490@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
"Pat" <npat1@juno.com> wrote:
> I believe that global warming will get much worse in just decades
> ahead. Natural resources for cooling and sustaining life will become
> scarce. There will be worldwide suffering. It is a poor decision to
> start a family now, especially for couples who feel responsible and
> caring toward their loved ones. If enough people see it that way, we
> may be able to slow population growth and greenhouse warming.
The problem is the growth of useless eaters who add to pollution. There
is always need for more children who will be productive. The dregs will
always reproduce to the limit of the food supply and it will get worse
if the producers have fewer children.
--
Free men own guns - www.geocities/CapitolHill/5357/
| |
| Joe Fischer 2006-11-19, 3:25 am |
| On 18 Nov 2006 18:17:10 -0800, "serasian" <gmenator@gmail.com> wrote:
>In the 60s, we knew this phenomena would be happening .
When I stated that it has been cooler than normal the
last couple of months, I was called a liar by one person, now
while trying to find today's global average temperature, this
[Quote]
"You probably noticed there were fewer Atlantic hurricanes this year.
Melting Arctic sea ice came extremely close to but didn't break the
record minimum of summer 2005. And today, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, announced two months of
cooler-than-average temperatures across the United States."
[Unquote]
appeared in
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=2655929
My shivers do not lie.
Joe Fischer
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-11-19, 5:25 pm |
| Joe Fischer wrote:
> On 18 Nov 2006 18:17:10 -0800, "serasian" <gmenator@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> When I stated that it has been cooler than normal the
> last couple of months, I was called a liar by one person, now
> while trying to find today's global average temperature, this
>
> [Quote]
> "You probably noticed there were fewer Atlantic hurricanes this year.
> Melting Arctic sea ice came extremely close to but didn't break the
> record minimum of summer 2005. And today, the National Oceanic and
> Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, announced two months of
> cooler-than-average temperatures across the United States."
> [Unquote]
>
> appeared in
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=2655929
>
> My shivers do not lie.
Sure they do. NOAA will also tell you that the temperature of the ocean off
Massachusetts is higher than normal. The quote you made, above, actually
implies that the Arctic ocean is warmer than _normal_, but not quite as
warm as 2005. You're not a liar, you just have a really small piece of the
big picture - and you're wrong. Meanwhile, temperatures in Nova Scotia
have been 8-10C higher than _normal_ for two weeks...
--
derek
| |
| Joe Fischer 2006-11-19, 5:25 pm |
| On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 15:59:05 -0400, Derek Broughton
<news@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>Joe Fischer wrote:
>
>Sure they do. NOAA will also tell you that the temperature of the ocean off
>Massachusetts is higher than normal. The quote you made, above, actually
>implies that the Arctic ocean is warmer than _normal_, but not quite as
>warm as 2005. You're not a liar, you just have a really small piece of the
>big picture - and you're wrong. Meanwhile, temperatures in Nova Scotia
>have been 8-10C higher than _normal_ for two weeks...
I quoted the whole paragraph, but it was the last sentence
that supported what I said about almost every day being below
normal/
Joe Fischer
| |
|
|
Joe Fischer wrote:
> On 19 Nov 2006 "Pat" <npat1@juno.com> wrote:
>
>
> Gee, 60 years ago this month I was teaching Arctic
> survival to Nationalist Chinese aircraft inspections officers,
> and now I have to learn about global warming.
>
> I prefer the warming.
>
> Joe Fischer
That sounds like an interesting personal story, but I don't see how it
has anything to do with the January, 2003 statement by NOAA Deputy
Administrator Dr. James Mahoney (ret.).
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-11-20, 9:25 am |
| Joe Fischer wrote:
>
> I quoted the whole paragraph, but it was the last sentence
> that supported what I said about almost every day being below
> normal/
You continue to miss the point. Two months does not make a trend (heck, the
global-warming believers haven't been able to convince the doubters that
100 years makes a trend), and even then that two months - even if it's
across the whole US - is offset by other locales. Local cooling,
ironically, reinforces the concept of global warming. Higher energy
systems _should_ cause greater extremes at both ends of the spectrum.
--
derek
| |
| Trygve Lillefosse 2006-11-20, 1:25 pm |
| On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 22:56:08 -0500, Joe Fischer
<joe@westpointracing.com> wrote:
>On 19 Nov 2006 "Pat" <npat1@juno.com> wrote:
>
>
> Gee, 60 years ago this month I was teaching Arctic
>survival to Nationalist Chinese aircraft inspections officers,
>and now I have to learn about global warming.
>
> I prefer the warming.
After what I understand, the earth should be in a cooling cycle by
now, but that is reversed by humans.
Imagine what would have happened if earth was in a warming cycle now.
--
SEE YA !!!
Trygve Lillefosse
AKA - Malawi, The Fisher King
| |
| Joe Fischer 2006-11-20, 1:25 pm |
| On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 09:00:01 -0400, Derek Broughton
<news@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>Joe Fischer wrote:
>
>You continue to miss the point.
That some scientists claim that CO2 is the major cause
of global warming? And some don't?
>Two months does not make a trend (heck, the
>global-warming believers haven't been able to convince the doubters that
>100 years makes a trend),
There is no 100 years of data in all of the places
that might be considered adequate.
The trend shown by the "hockey stick" graph
only curves up since about 1970 or 1980, which just
happens to be when widespread use of digital
thermometers occurred, and the first data from
a satellite caused the premise of man made global
warming.
In another message I posted the link from
1982, and it gives an average temperature warmer
or the same as the current one, so I am still searching.
Please don't ask me to accept something just
because certain people say it is so, especially if those
people are politicians or belong to some group with
a biased agenda.
>and even then that two months - even if it's
>across the whole US - is offset by other locales.
It surely is included in the average, so if another
place is the same amount warmer, then the average
didn't change.
>Local cooling,
>ironically, reinforces the concept of global warming.
That is the kind of statement that causes me to
be not only not convinced, but skeptical.
>Higher energy
>systems _should_ cause greater extremes at both ends of the spectrum.
And record keeping in even one locality is not old
enough to have recorded a record high or low for every
day of the year.
The highest temperature for any date here is -22 F,
but 50 miles from here it is -31 F.
Global warming doesn't melt polar ice, polar
temperatures above freezing do that on the surface,
but ice is always melting underneath, even if the
surface is -50 F.
And I still say it is foolish to make plans on
the basis of a premise such as global warming when
the availability of affordable energy to keep warm
and get to work has become uncertain.
Producing renewable fuel will do more to
reduce the use of fossil fuels than anything else
short of freezing to death, so producing renewable
fuel is what should be done, and if there is global
warming due to man burning fossil fuel, then that
problem should be solved by the use of renewable
fuel.
This appears to me to be like so many things,
rumor, old wives tales, biased agenda, political cause,
propaganda, and insufficient data over a long enough
period.
So instead of pressing keys, we should be out
planting starch and sugar crops, and calling power
plants to integrate a number of stills into their feed
water condensor system so that it takes NO energy
to distill ethanol.
Joe Fischer
| |
|
|
Trygve Lillefosse wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 22:56:08 -0500, Joe Fischer
> <joe@westpointracing.com> wrote:
>
>
> After what I understand, the earth should be in a cooling cycle by
> now, but that is reversed by humans.
>
> Imagine what would have happened if earth was in a warming cycle now.
>
> --
> SEE YA !!!
> Trygve Lillefosse
> AKA - Malawi, The Fisher King
Not that hard to imagine after seeing Fossil Butte National Monument in
Wyoming where one can still find 50 million year old fish and plants
from a then subtropical environment that existed around the time of the
Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum.
But the biggest problem for this brief period of time (the 21st
century) may be that:
...."These are conditions not seen for millions of years, so none of the
species will have been subjected to them before,"
Global warming taking earth back to dinosaur era".
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/globa...g/message/13364
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-11-21, 9:25 am |
| Joe Fischer wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 09:00:01 -0400, Derek Broughton
> <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>
>
> There is no 100 years of data in all of the places
> that might be considered adequate.
Now _that's_ the point. There is indeed 100 years of data and quite a
sufficient number of datapoints, but the naysayers will continue to claim
that it's not statistically significant until the rising oceans swallow
them up.
>
> The trend shown by the "hockey stick" graph
> only curves up since about 1970 or 1980, which just
I don't know what you mean by "hockey stick" graph, but the trend on the
graphs I've seen - even from naysayers - clearly correlates CO2 to
temperature rising for more than 100 years.
> Please don't ask me to accept something just
> because certain people say it is so, especially if those
> people are politicians or belong to some group with
> a biased agenda.
Of course I'm asking that - it is, after all, exactly what you're doing.
When it comes right down to it, we all pick and choose the sources we
accept. The groups on _both_ sides of the issue have biased agendas. I
just happen to believe that the (vast) preponderance of evidence is on the
warming side.
>
>
> It surely is included in the average, so if another
> place is the same amount warmer, then the average
> didn't change.
The average _isn't_ the "same amount" warmer, by any evidence I've seen.
>
> That is the kind of statement that causes me to
> be not only not convinced, but skeptical.
That simply means that you aren't actually judging based on real evidence
but your own desires, and makes you less believable.
>
>
> And record keeping in even one locality is not old
> enough to have recorded a record high or low for every
> day of the year.
Why would you need to record temperatures for every day of the year? As
long as you get reasonably reliable numbers spread evenly across the year,
the data is good. The only way to deny the warming record over the last
century is to claim actual falsification of the data (as Michael Crichton
did in his novel on the subject). Such falsification would have had to
start many years ago, before the data from each source was shared.
> The highest temperature for any date here is -22 F,
> but 50 miles from here it is -31 F.
No inhabited place on earth is that cold... (I don't think _either_ pole is
that cold, either, but I'm not prepared to bet on it).
>
> Global warming doesn't melt polar ice, polar
> temperatures above freezing do that on the surface,
> but ice is always melting underneath, even if the
> surface is -50 F.
That's two completely unconnected statements. One true, one provably false.
Yes, there is, and will always be (as long as there is polar ice)
subsurface melting. If there is global warming, however, it _must_ cause
surface melt. You can continue to deny global warming, but it's easy
enough to demonstrate that a warmer atmosphere is going to melt surface
ice.
>
> And I still say it is foolish to make plans on
> the basis of a premise such as global warming when
> the availability of affordable energy to keep warm
> and get to work has become uncertain.
I say it's foolish not to conserve energy. We could quite easily stop
wasting enough energy to meet the requirements of the Kyoto accord (if the
global warming alarmists are correct, this wouldn't actually help with the
warming problem, but it's a start). What it _would_ do is make a big
difference to the "availability of affordable energy to keep warm".
> Producing renewable fuel will do more to
> reduce the use of fossil fuels than anything else
Not as much as conservation...
> So instead of pressing keys, we should be out
> planting starch and sugar crops, and calling power
> plants to integrate a number of stills into their feed
> water condensor system so that it takes NO energy
> to distill ethanol.
Distillation isn't the major energy cost of ethanol production, it's the
agriculture - all those tractors and trucks.
--
derek
|
|
|
|
|