Urban planning community

+ Reply to thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 26 to 40 of 40

Thread: Now it is global cooling???

  1. #26
    Cyburbian Duke Of Dystopia's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cyburbias Brewpub, best seat in the haus!
    Posts
    2,669
    Quote Originally posted by michaelskis View post
    There was a point in time when almost all of it was under water. They find evidence of aquatic life in almost every point on the planet.
    ........
    Additionally, Emerald Ash Boer, Gypsy Moth, and Zebra Mussels are all invasive non-native species that thrive not because of a change in climate, but because of a lack of natural predators.
    A) It's called plate tectonics. It is no longer a theory, and explains your aquatic life suggestion. Unless you are arguing for biblical creationism or intelligent design, neither of which can pass any kind of logic test that makes any kind of sense.

    B) You should do some reading on occasion, it might do you some good. There is a limit to expansion of some of these invasive species based upon the length and severity of winters.

    A severe winter helps to control gypsy moth infestations. A mild winter allows their range to increase. Ergo, global warming allows that particular invasive species to increase its range or shrink its range based upon the climate limits the insect has. Basic science education is a must.

    The emerald ash borer may have a similar range inhibitor or it may have another limit, when all the ash trees are gone.

    Zebra muscles? May or may not have a range inhibitor, but warmer climates will NOT limit its range. A warmer climate will also allow an expansion of other invasive species northward, such as africanized bees.

    There are more, like Kudzu (doesn't grow well in northern climates), that could be put on this list. Hiding behind a label like "Invasive Species" does not change the underlying science of climate.
    I can't deliver UTOPIA, but I can create a HELL for you to LIVE in :)DoD:(

  2. #27
    Cyburbian CJC's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2007
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    1,689
    Quote Originally posted by michaelskis View post
    As for DODís, are you saying you and the scientists are 100% positive that the planet is warming and it is 100% because of manís neglect for the environment? Or is it a herd of cattle in Africa who have a bit too much gas? Or a volcano in Asia that pumps twice as much CO2 into the air as all the cars on the planet combine within the same time period? Or is it because of undersea volcanic eruptions causing water vapor and sulfur to mix spewing toxic fumes into the atmosphere? Of perhaps there as volcanic eruptions around that caused the snow to get dirty. After all, when Mount St. Helenís erupted there was an ash cloud that was able to go around the globe with 31 days and they now can fine trace ash content of that event in ice and snow back in Siberia. They also have soil and ice core samples to show the same thing has happened over and over and over, well before the industrial revolution.

    My point is people claim that human caused global warming is fact... in reality it is nothing more than theory by people who are short sited when looking into the past.
    I've never understood arguments such as these. Is it all or nothing? If man isn't responsible for everything, then man is responsible for nothing?

    I am 100% positive of the accepted consensus among experts in the field of climate change.

  3. #28
    Cyburbian KSharpe's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2006
    Location
    in the midwest
    Posts
    744
    I think you guys should ask Cecil Adams
    http://www.straightdope.com/columns/060407.html

    To summarize: Yes, it's happening, but there's not a whole lot we can do about it.
    Do you want to pet my monkey?

  4. #29
    Cyburbian TexanOkie's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    2,904
    I'll pretend I'm a 100% "born again" warming believer and ask the following question: has anyone done any research or entrepreneurial efforts into removing portions of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere? As several have pointed out (not just Cyburbians, but also climatologists), once you can observe it, it's too late. You're f^cked.

    Even if we cut new greenhouse gases completely, wouldn't it just continue to get warmer at substantially increasing rates? I mean it might slow down some, but still... we'd get 200 instead of 100 years to evacuate every coastal region in the world and completely revamp our food production methods and locations. A lot can happen in 100 years and it might make the transition a little more smooth, but either way, we're eventually screwed completely unless we can take out the excess greenhouse gases.

  5. #30
    Cyburbian zman's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    9,015
    Blog entries
    2
    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    I'll pretend I'm a 100% "born again" warming believer and ask the following question: has anyone done any research or entrepreneurial efforts into removing portions of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere? As several have pointed out (not just Cyburbians, but also climatologists), once you can observe it, it's too late. You're f^cked.
    Plant more trees, Man....

    Peace.

  6. #31
    Cyburbian michaelskis's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Someplace between yesterday and tomorrow.
    Posts
    12,294
    Quote Originally posted by Duke Of Dystopia View post
    A) It's called plate tectonics. It is no longer a theory, and explains your aquatic life suggestion. Unless you are arguing for biblical creationism or intelligent design, neither of which can pass any kind of logic test that makes any kind of sense.

    B) You should do some reading on occasion, it might do you some good. There is a limit to expansion of some of these invasive species based upon the length and severity of winters.

    A severe winter helps to control gypsy moth infestations. A mild winter allows their range to increase. Ergo, global warming allows that particular invasive species to increase its range or shrink its range based upon the climate limits the insect has. Basic science education is a must.

    The emerald ash borer may have a similar range inhibitor or it may have another limit, when all the ash trees are gone.

    Zebra muscles? May or may not have a range inhibitor, but warmer climates will NOT limit its range. A warmer climate will also allow an expansion of other invasive species northward, such as africanized bees.

    There are more, like Kudzu (doesn't grow well in northern climates), that could be put on this list. Hiding behind a label like "Invasive Species" does not change the underlying science of climate.

    All three of these species were introduced to North America by accident. The gypsy moth was part of an experiment in the 1800s and escaped from a lab in MA. Its spread has been of natural progression over North America. No environmental influence.

    The emerald ash bore was introduced from Asia because of contaminated pallet wood in Detroit about a decade ago. The only way it can spread is when it is carried from one point to the next. For years it was contained to the Lower Peninsula, but in 2005 they found it just on the UP side of the bridge. No environmental influence.

    The Zebra Mussels originated because of ballast water in massive ships and were introduced to waters that had a significant range of temperatures, including extreme cold. They have continued to increase in population, despite the potential increase in temperature of the great lakes, reducing water levels, and technology to stop them. While they are an invasive species and cause problems for boaters, beach goers, and other aquatic wildlife, they are also responsible for a dramatic improvement in water quality. They filter amazing amounts of water within a short period. No environmental influence.

    All three are the way they are in the US not because of the environment, but because of the lack of natural predators.

    I think that we can agree that we disagree, but I also think that we probably want to improve our environment, regardless of the causes. The important thing is the same action is being taken, even if we have different motives behind it.
    Not my monkey, not my circus. - Old Polish Proverb

  7. #32
    Cyburbian Duke Of Dystopia's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cyburbias Brewpub, best seat in the haus!
    Posts
    2,669
    Quote Originally posted by michaelskis View post
    All three of these species were introduced to North America by accident. The gypsy moth was part of an experiment in the 1800s and escaped from a lab in MA. Its spread has been of natural progression over North America. No environmental influence.
    ........

    All three are the way they are in the US not because of the environment, but because of the lack of natural predators.

    I think that we can agree that we disagree, but I also think that we probably want to improve our environment, regardless of the causes. The important thing is the same action is being taken, even if we have different motives behind it.
    This is where basic science is key. Even an invasive species has environmental range limits. As mentioned earlier, your claim it has no natural predators and therefore no natural limits is an incorrect assumption.

    Climate has a huge effect on even invasive species. This is a fact. I also mentioned other species that also depend on climate conditions for increasing or decreasing their range (Kudzu, africanized bees). Picking and choosing which ones fit your ideas does not fit the science. Gypsy Moths fall into the pine beetle climate limits, so even invasive species have environmental limits, predators or not.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As someone else also asked if there has been any work put into how to commercially viable options to remove carbon from the atmosphere. The answer is yes. Some want to launch chemicals into the atmosphere (would cool the planet but destroy the ozone). Others would create passive tower and net webs that would filter carbon from the atmosphere and then sequester the resulting carbon at the bottom of abandoned mines (untried but possible). In short they are working on the technical solution.
    I can't deliver UTOPIA, but I can create a HELL for you to LIVE in :)DoD:(

  8. #33
    Cyburbian ofos's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Slightly Off-Center
    Posts
    8,258
    Quote Originally posted by michaelskis View post
    I think that we can agree that we disagree, but I also think that we probably want to improve our environment, regardless of the causes. The important thing is the same action is being taken, even if we have different motives behind it.
    Mskis, I'm proud of you. A brief, yet reasoned response, and a diplomatic solution.
    ďDeath comes when memories of the past exceed the vision for the future.Ē

  9. #34
    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    I'll pretend I'm a 100% "born again" warming believer and ask the following question: has anyone done any research or entrepreneurial efforts into removing portions of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere? As several have pointed out (not just Cyburbians, but also climatologists), once you can observe it, it's too late. You're f^cked.
    Nuclear winter. Presto, environmental change-o.

  10. #35
    Cyburbian boiker's avatar
    Registered
    Dec 2001
    Location
    West Valley, AZ
    Posts
    3,894
    It's safe to add that humans have grealy influenced bio diversity and distribution on the planet which will have some impact on at least localized climate and environmental items.

    Invasive species-- human caused
    Clearing of the prairies for agriculture-- human caused
    Insane logging in the eastern half of the country -- human caused

    Each of these actions will have or has caused a consequence(s). Being environmental isn't necessarily about preventing climate change but it is about minimizing our effect (realized, potential or imaginary) on the system.
    Dude, I'm cheesing so hard right now.

  11. #36
    Cyburbian Richi's avatar
    Registered
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Tallahassee, FL
    Posts
    409
    Gedunk - There are concepts floating around to condende at least CO2 (that's relaticvely easy to do) and sequester it deep into the earth in played out wells (methane out for fuel and co2 back where the gas was) or into mines that can be sealed up. That takes mucho energy, but it could be done with off-peak electricity from solar or wend or water or nukes. Might could use waste heat to run a refrigeration unit like a gas powered frige, but I don't know about the numbers re: how practical it would be.

    Seems like a good way to reuse old played out mines or especially the former gas/oil wells

  12. #37
    Cyburbian boiker's avatar
    Registered
    Dec 2001
    Location
    West Valley, AZ
    Posts
    3,894

    LA Times article

    Because there are four seperate threads on global warming, I wasn't sure which was the best to put this in.

    The LA Times has an article today that states that Pres. Bush's top advisers agree that fossil fuel consumption has impacted global climate, causing warming, and we're (industry, cars, etc) are the primary contributer to this climate change.

    I'm not trolling, but I'm interested how this might modify the personal opinion of global warming for many of those on this board who have denied the impacts of human civilization on climate. I think we'll all agree there are probably additional external factors that influence our climate, but ignoring an overwhelming scientific consensus, including the findings of Bush's top science advisors is just stubborness to accept reality.
    Dude, I'm cheesing so hard right now.

  13. #38
    Cyburbian otterpop's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Down by Dun Ringill
    Posts
    5,895
    Blog entries
    6
    Quote Originally posted by Richi View post
    Gedunk - There are concepts floating around to condende at least CO2 (that's relaticvely easy to do) and sequester it deep into the earth in played out wells (methane out for fuel and co2 back where the gas was) or into mines that can be sealed up. That takes mucho energy, but it could be done with off-peak electricity from solar or wend or water or nukes. Might could use waste heat to run a refrigeration unit like a gas powered frige, but I don't know about the numbers re: how practical it would be.

    Seems like a good way to reuse old played out mines or especially the former gas/oil wells
    A friend of mine just did her Ph.D. dissertation on this very subject. One of the advantages is that carbon atoms readily attach themselves to other atoms. So deep injection into played-out oil wells and natural geologic structures can work well, depending of course on the type of rock. So the carbon attaches itself to the underground rock and will remain there indefinitely. It is not the solution by any means. The amount of carbon that can be sequestered is small compared to what we put out everyday. But it is something that makes the problem a little better.
    "I am very good at reading women, but I get into trouble for using the Braille method."

    ~ Otterpop ~

  14. #39
    Cyburbian btrage's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    Metro Detroit
    Posts
    6,419
    Quote Originally posted by boiker View post
    Because there are four seperate threads on global warming, I wasn't sure which was the best to put this in.

    The LA Times has an article today that states that Pres. Bush's top advisers agree that fossil fuel consumption has impacted global climate, causing warming, and we're (industry, cars, etc) are the primary contributer to this climate change.

    I'm not trolling, but I'm interested how this might modify the personal opinion of global warming for many of those on this board who have denied the impacts of human civilization on climate. I think we'll all agree there are probably additional external factors that influence our climate, but ignoring an overwhelming scientific consensus, including the findings of Bush's top science advisors is just stubborness to accept reality.
    Not to get too political, but how convenient that this happens in year 8 of the administration.

  15. #40
    Cyburbian imaplanner's avatar
    Registered
    May 2004
    Location
    Snarkville
    Posts
    6,587
    Quote Originally posted by boiker View post
    Because there are four seperate threads on global warming, I wasn't sure which was the best to put this in.

    The LA Times has an article today that states that Pres. Bush's top advisers agree that fossil fuel consumption has impacted global climate, causing warming, and we're (industry, cars, etc) are the primary contributer to this climate change.

    I'm not trolling, but I'm interested how this might modify the personal opinion of global warming for many of those on this board who have denied the impacts of human civilization on climate. I think we'll all agree there are probably additional external factors that influence our climate, but ignoring an overwhelming scientific consensus, including the findings of Bush's top science advisors is just stubborness to accept reality.
    I don't think this is going to change very many peoples opinions. I think a bit of stubborness is at play with people, but in all seriousness, until talking heads like Rush and Hannity accept it there will be a very large percentage of people who will continue to claim it as a hoax.

+ Reply to thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

More at Cyburbia

  1. Replies: 4
    Last post: 18 Feb 2010, 10:05 AM
  2. Residential cooling towers
    Design, Space, and Place
    Replies: 8
    Last post: 08 Jun 2009, 10:43 AM
  3. Replies: 22
    Last post: 14 Feb 2005, 8:22 PM
  4. Global Warming?
    Friday Afternoon Club
    Replies: 7
    Last post: 02 Jan 2005, 8:50 PM
  5. Who said Global Freezing?
    Friday Afternoon Club
    Replies: 0
    Last post: 19 Jun 2003, 8:09 PM