Sea to rise 15 times faster thna prev... Log Out | Lost Password? | Topics | Search | Who's Online
Contact | Register | My Profile | SO home | MOL home

M-SO Message Board » Soapbox: All Politics » Archive through August 12, 2006 » Archive through March 7, 2006 » Sea to rise 15 times faster thna previous studies TIme mag « Previous Next »

  Thread Originator Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
Archive through February 24, 2006FojScrotis Lo Knows40 2-24-06  3:53 pm
  ClosedClosed: New threads not accepted on this page          

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead

Post Number: 3074
Registered: 5-2001


Posted on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 4:09 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Good man, SLK, and welcome to the fold. You may be interested in knowing that, according to the study reported in this article, 93% of Americans agree that global warming is a problem.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

tom
Citizen
Username: Tom

Post Number: 4412
Registered: 5-2001
Posted on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 4:23 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Thanks. A much higher scale is going to be necessary, because individual action and "the wisdom of the market" isn't going to get us there soon enough.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows

Post Number: 847
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 4:50 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

notey-

hold on now, I am not exactly jumping sides here. Lets just it that I will take a look at your link...

-SLK
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Threeringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale

Post Number: 58
Registered: 1-2006
Posted on Sunday, February 26, 2006 - 9:46 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse: Plants contribute to global warming?!?

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060114/fob1.asp

I don't know who funds the Max Planck Institute.
Does anyone remember Ronald Reagan saying something about trees causing pollution?
Cheers
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows

Post Number: 871
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Sunday, February 26, 2006 - 8:15 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Threeringale-

How dare they blame plants, it all us pesky human's fault...GW that is...no wait...AGW...

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows

Post Number: 872
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Sunday, February 26, 2006 - 8:19 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

cont.

sooooo, I guess we are off the hook by 20%...so what do we do now, drain the swamps and kill all the trees and plants?

-SLK

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows

Post Number: 873
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Sunday, February 26, 2006 - 8:20 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

cont. again

and oh, and target practice on all the bovine?

There, now I am done...

-SLK
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Threeringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale

Post Number: 60
Registered: 1-2006
Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 7:43 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

SLK,
Well, it's only 20% of the methane that comes from plants. The other major greenhouse gas is CO2. I'm not sure what the proportions of CO2/methane are in the overall picture. I just think the whole thing is complex and we shouldn't go overboard. Build more nuclear plants, improve fossil fuel efficiency, and continue to study solar, wind, geothermal etc.
If the peak oil people are right, greenhouse emissions should go down in about 10 years because the the cost of oil will be prohibitive.
I haven't read it yet, but this seems to be one of the points of James Howard Kunstler's recent book, The Long Emergency. It sounds pretty scary.
Cheers
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead

Post Number: 3103
Registered: 5-2001


Posted on Thursday, March 2, 2006 - 9:37 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Meanwhile... this February saw record-breaking high temperatures all over Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, and Wyoming.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows

Post Number: 917
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Thursday, March 2, 2006 - 9:44 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

notehead-

I don't want to rehash an arggment because in the end we will both be on the same sides we started and nothign will change....BUT...

recordbreaking temp proves NOTHING regarding AGW. Can it remotely be possible that it is part of a natural climtal change? Just remotely...can you give me that? Maybe 5% out of 100%...come on...please...I'll be your best friend....I'll give you five bucks... :-)

-SLK
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead

Post Number: 3104
Registered: 5-2001


Posted on Thursday, March 2, 2006 - 10:26 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Yes, there is a remote chance that this particular winter heat wave out west is strictly due to a natural climatic fluctuation that has nothing whatsoever to do with AGW.

The same can be said for any individual element among the statistics-crushing onslaught of aberrant weather events since the Industrial Revolution that comprise the largest and fastest spike in global temperatures since humans began walking upright.

Save your five bucks and buy me a beer sometime.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

tom
Citizen
Username: Tom

Post Number: 4444
Registered: 5-2001
Posted on Thursday, March 2, 2006 - 10:34 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Would a 5% chance somehow justify the administration's energy policies? Talk about your pre-9/11 mindset. Theirs is pre-9/11/1923.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows

Post Number: 921
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Thursday, March 2, 2006 - 10:36 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

no Tom-it is called accouting for ALL possibilitites....
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead

Post Number: 3106
Registered: 5-2001


Posted on Thursday, March 2, 2006 - 10:59 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

There is also some amount of possibility that the warm February out west was caused exclusively by aliens manipulating the climate in order to enhance their observations of us. How much consideration does that possibility deserve?

It may be possible that the warm weather was entirely a quantum-level result of the flapping of a butterfly's wings somewhere in Madagascar.

I'm confident that climate scientists will give both of those possibilities -- as well as the impacts of purely natural weather patterns -- the proper amount of consideration.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

tom
Citizen
Username: Tom

Post Number: 4446
Registered: 5-2001
Posted on Thursday, March 2, 2006 - 11:17 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

true; and each calls for a different course of action. One calls for us to ignore it; the other calls for major changes in how we work. Do we go with the 5% or the 95% chance (please consider that we're going to need to come up with alternative energy sources in the next 30 years anyway).
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows

Post Number: 929
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Thursday, March 2, 2006 - 2:20 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

notey-

Let me rephrase myself...all REASONABLE possibilities. Why do you go to the extremes (borderline absurd)just because we disagree?

Creepy....

-SLK
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead

Post Number: 3110
Registered: 5-2001


Posted on Friday, March 3, 2006 - 10:49 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I'm making a point, which might be lost on you. I think Tom spelled it out in his 11:17 post yesterday.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

The SLK Effect
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows

Post Number: 947
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Friday, March 3, 2006 - 12:38 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

notey-

this is a lost cause....and I think your just lost...

-SLK
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

tom
Citizen
Username: Tom

Post Number: 4451
Registered: 5-2001
Posted on Friday, March 3, 2006 - 3:43 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

SLK, what, if any, course of centrally organized action do you think should be taken?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead

Post Number: 3112
Registered: 5-2001


Posted on Friday, March 3, 2006 - 3:50 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I wonder if that final 7% of Americans who don't think that AGW is a problem could be convinced to change their driving habits if they could easily afford and acquire a cute little electric car like the 3-seater Kewet "Buddy" from Norway...

buddy


...or the 2-person tandem seater Tango from Commuter Cars in California, which goes 0-to-60 in about 4 seconds. (George Clooney drives a black one.)

tango
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

The SLK Effect
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows

Post Number: 952
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Friday, March 3, 2006 - 4:49 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

notey-

Please accept my apology for my last post, it was uncalled for and wrong.

Basically someone pissed me off at work and you were next in my line of fire....peace! :-)

One question, if 93% of those convinced that AGW is the real deal and start driving these things then why do the remaining 7% have to give up our cars?

-SLK

PS...how do you paste pics by the way...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead

Post Number: 3113
Registered: 5-2001


Posted on Friday, March 3, 2006 - 8:54 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

No harm done, bro. If 93% do start making a real solid effort to switch to renewable energy and be generally more energy-conscious, then the remaining 7% probably don't have to do much. But they will probably be mercilessly mocked in some bulletin board online, somewhere.

Another option which will be available very soon in the U.S. is the Smart, imported by Zap of California....

smart


(You post pics via the 'Upload Attachment' button, below.)

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Credits Administration