Of course, I couldn't have done that on purpose, could I?Right on queue, too. That was awesome.
Uncanny how I used the identical quote and everything!
Things like Environment, Medical Care, Taxation, Infrastructure, Defense and Law Making should be the domain of government (maybe some real obvious things as well that I am missing).
Anything beyond the obvious, leave to the domain of the people. People suggesting cars should emit less toxins, or requiring car makers to produce vehicles that get high MPG....are these really that bad? Does this truly stunt the growth of the sector?
If so, tell that to Toyota and Honda.
Conservatives aren't proposing we impoverish our country over the evolution vs. Intelligent Design vs. Creationism debate, are they?
How is that related to anthropogenic global climate change? Please cite the appropriate scientific studies.
And, how about Mount Kilimanjaro (sp?). Remember? Gore used it as an example of how increased CO2 was causing it's ice cap to recede. Ooops! Now, it seems it's being caused by local clear cutting on the mountainside and not some "global" manifestation after all.
Antartica? melting in some spots...getting colder in others. And, on the whole colder than before. But, nothing that hasn't happened before.
So, what does your UK article say about the Artic?
Well then, start your own country and write a cons ution that does those things.
Because our current cons ution doesn't contemplate government doing much of what you just stated beyond defense and infrastructure in support of commerce. Legislation and taxation are mechanisms by which government is operated, not functions but, funny you should see them that way.
No, but government regulation might. This should be a function of supply and demand. If people truly want more efficient cars, industry will provide them.
It has been extremely hot in LA...Some people argue that it is because of global warming...I think it is because it’s July....
Fair enough, but a good number of people want to drive drunk, smoke weed and molest children. Doesnt mean we give them a choice on the matter.
Coupled with the fact that, I dont care how you spin it, America will perpetually be at war over oil. They have the most, we do not. Therefore we will constantly have an interest in the region solely based on the fact that we will not explore alternative methods of travel.
Obviously, this is theory-world. But if by 2010 all Americans are driving some sort hybrid/high MPG/alternate fuel source vehicle, how much LESS dependant upon the Middle East would we be?
that's definitely man-made
You damn non-believer. And quit eating beef.
Ah so people who drive big cars are drunk drivers, child
molesters and break the narcotics laws. Or the equivalent
thereof. I didn't know that. Eat any beef lately.
But, it's not a global manifestation. Gore's contention was that it was being caused by rises in CO2.
I've never said we couldn't affect our climate or the environment on a local bases.
Did you see the UFO video in the other thread? I think the guy is arguing with your "perpetually" argument.
And, it's not that we don't have oil...it's that the enviro-whackos won't let us retrieve it.
we got plenty of reserve in Iraq
They're getting ready to sell it to the Chinese.
D'oh!!
Never was about oil. That was your fantasy.
The Greenland ice sheet is shrinking, too.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...081001557.html
Of course, effects are cir stantial evidence. But denying the fire when there is smoke is foolish.
You guys can never settle on your own fantasy reason; WMD, spreadin' Democracy, fighting global terrorism...
fixed for accuracy
Shrinking and revealing the remnants of villages during a more temperate time. What caused that warming?
Link? Seriously, where'd you get that idea?
At least we know how you define accuracy. Explains so much.
uh-oh, yoni's getting personal
No, people that drive large vehicles are not the equivalent.
You missed the point. The point was, just because a person wants to, doesnt mean they should be allowed.
How was that personal? Is it unreasonable to expect you to support the nonsense you spout in here?
I'd link to the Bill-O interview, but you won't see this post anyway.
How does that article help when the author lies about cause and effect?
I can buy the three degrees, but not due to CO2. It is from a by-product of producing CO2 during electrical generation called black carbon. The coal burning plants in China are depositing soot on the ice, collecting heat from the sun, and melting the ice. The arctic ocean now warms because the water is absorbing more than 90% of the suns radiation instead of reflecting more than 90% of it.Sea temperatures in the Arctic have risen 3C in recent decades due to a buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, according to Mark Serreze, who led the study at the University of Colorado, Boulder. He fears continued thinning of the ice will lead to a sudden acceleration of melting that will leave the ocean ice-free.
Also note, warmer sea water can absorb less CO2. It releases it. If the 3 degrees was a global average, that would equate to about an additional 84 ppm of CO2 globally.
Now don't forget celestial cycles too. What is the soot and cycles are in sync? When the Vikings were the masters of the area, Greenland was green, and they likely had no northern cap to hinder their voyages.
There are also the ocean current cycles themselves.
Too many factors to say CO2 is the issue, especially when they don't give surface temperature readings to support their contentions. I would say they conveniently leave those readings out, because they would oppose their conclusions rather than support them.
A few links:
Black Soot and Snow: A Warmer Combination
Black and White: Soot on Ice an updated version
Scientists Confirm Earth's Energy is Out of Balance :
The study reveals Earth's energy imbalance is large by standards of the planet's history. The imbalance is 0.85 watts per meter squared. That will cause an additional warming of 0.6 degrees Celsius (1 degree Fahrenheit) by the end of this century.This out of balance is because of the long lag time from cause to effect of the ocean warming. The land has a nearly immediate effect. The oceans are more complex in absorbing and reflecting radiation because it a fluid rather than solid. I would guess we need a moving average graph of at least 150 years to model absorbed radiation to balance. I haven't see accurate lag figures other than an 800 year average lag between temperiture and CO2 levels.As the Earth warms it emits more heat. Eventually the Earth will be back in balance, if the greenhouse gas emissions are kept at the same level of today. Scientists know it takes the ocean longer to warm than the land. The lag in the ocean's response has practical consequences. It means there is an additional global warming of about one degree Fahrenheit that is already in the pipeline. Even if there were no further increase of human-made gases in the air, climate would continue to warm that much over the next century.
STUDY SHOWS POLLUTION FROM CHINA AND INDIA AFFECTING WORLD'S WEATHER:
The Pacific storm track carries these polluted particles to the west coasts of Canada and the United States, across America and eventually, most of the world, Zhang notes.
"The Pacific storm track can impact weather all over the globe," he says.
"The general air flow is from west to east, but there is also some serious concern that the polar regions could be affected by this pollution. That could have potentially catastrophic results."
Soot, in the form of black carbon, can collect on ice packs and attract more heat from the sun, meaning a potential acceleration of melting of the polar ice caps, he believes.
"It possibly means the polar ice caps could melt quicker than we had believed, which of course, results in rising sea level rates," he adds.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote