Global Warming?

[powerpace]

Good grief. I can not believe this topic still exists.

They usually will go till someone takes offense personally then the Moderator pulls the plug.
This particular topic could flow as long as long as there are weather and climate.

 

[Cat_Driver]

Beyond the 200 years, we have lots of potential data from dendrochronology and ice cores and such to make some educated guesses about earlier climates. We have the reporting data from those years to lay against the tree rings and ice cores, pond, lake, sea, and river delta sediments with pollen deposits, and things I probably haven't thought of on the spur of the moment, to help us read the natural record. The science goes beyond modern reporting.

"Potential Data" " Educated Guesses" ....how do you thing all this Gullible warming started.

By " Scientists" Lying, Guessing, and making up facts.

Here's one F-A-C-T no one can dispute and never has. " Scientists" used the same data and came up with two polar opposite conclusion. That there will be Global COOLING and Global WARMING. That's impossible, yet Al Gore got a Pulitzer Prize by bogus facts.

 

[Rob-D]

"Potential Data" " Educated Guesses" ....how do you thing all this Gullible warming started.

By " Scientists" Lying, Guessing, and making up facts.

Here's one F-A-C-T no one can dispute and never has. " Scientists" used the same data and came up with two polar opposite conclusion. That there will be Global COOLING and Global WARMING. That's impossible, yet Al Gore got a Pulitzer Prize by bogus facts.

First, they weren't bogus facts, they were interpretations of data. This is how science works. We make an observation and form a hypothesis about what is transpiring, as more data comes in we refine our guess. When we get to the point where our data and guess hold up beyond a reasonable doubt (Pythagorean Theorem, for example) we form a theory.

It's not uncommon for scientists to disagree on what is happening as data is gathered, take a look at the controversy surrounding the Unification Theory or what happens to matter at the rim of a Black Hole.

So please let's not blame Al Gore, what we have is a planet running out of energy, regardless what we think energy and pollution are the main issue. Talk show hosts want to shout about Al Gore because they basically couldn't find a flat on a unicycle and what they know about science could fit on the head of a pin.
The planet is in big trouble. Without the environment that feeds and waters us ALL life is gone. Let's focus on that and not complain about Al Gore's Nobel Prize, that won't resolve anything
If you want to get outraged get outraged at "terminator seeds" and the take over of this country buy corporations because that is what is destroying, not only this republic but the world.
If you notice talk show host don't talk about these things because that's the hand that feeds them. They are puppets and the propaganda they spew is exactly what big business wants. How come they aren't talking bout Monsanto controlling the world seed bank and the immense danger to the world this is? It's because they are corporate lackeys filling their personal coffers feeding pabulum tot he uneducated masses.

What's the ploy of a conquerer? "Divide and conquer". And what's happening? It's the liberals and Al Gore. That's called divide and conquer.

You want to be outraged, be outraged that Monsanto can sue Vermont. Be outraged that corporations have the rights of individuals. Being outraged at Al Gore is just the product of people buying talk show pabulum.

'CFL's are full of mercury and bad.' No, CFL's us 1/5 the energy of incandescent lights, there's more mercury in your mother's old thermometer than there is a CFL, 600 times more! Coal plants pump more mercury in to the environment powering incandescent lights than there is mercury in CFL's.
CFL's are not a liberal ploy! Talk about the lemmings running into the sea!

Rob

 

[patrick_g]

Grass fed beef on land not suitable for crops. That is a growing trend, that's what I raise. I could sell more but I only have ten acres. Most of the worlds population eats very little meat, compared to the U.S.

Populations of Countries that have a near starvation diet usually have a ineffective government. Poor land management, inadequate sanitary conditions, poor water distribution and uncontrolled population growth create a never ending emergency. The amount of cattle and sheep and goats may be a measure of wealth in areas of the world where land ownership has no practical advantage.

In parts of Africa people starve while they are surrounded by cattle. They also allow the cattle to die of starvation instead of eating them. India has a huge cattle count, the majority will never be eaten.

It may sound cruel but every time we send food to starving people it creates a ripple effect of new births and a new cycle of need. See it, understand it. Solve the long term problem, not the knee jerk plane flight of rice to countries that highjack the food supply to resell to the highest bidder.

The world needs less people not less cows.

Yup!!!

I have a small cow calf operation on 160 acres of land that used to be all cotton. Nearby town used to have 5 cotton gins and a railroad when cotton was king and then when the land was played out from mono-cropping cotton the town lost all grocery stores all 5 cotton gins and the railroad. There is no visible evidence of the prosperity or the activity or the RR or gins. Latest census shows the population under 400.

My land is pretty much reverted back to pre-cotton conditions as regards grass. It is mostly native prairie grasses which do not respond well to artificial fertilizers so fertilizing is just feeding the weeds. I have never purchased hay and resist selling mine. My black Angus are raised on grass and the hay they get is baled from their pastures. They get feed supplementation in addition to hay in winter. The supplement is grain based, byproducts for the most part of grain to alcohol process, distillers grains, corn gluten, and soy hulls. I use no growth hormone implants or artificial junk. My beef is beef not chemical beef.

As to many foreign nations being low in meat consumption; that is not by choice for the most part, they'd eat it if they could get it. The percentage of the planet's population that chooses to be vegetarian or nearly so is quite small. We did not evolve/descend from vegetarians, we are omnivores.

We are over polluting the planet and harming our environment and may be messing up our climate as well. The single greatest factor in pollution and any human contribution to detrimental climate change is first and foremost due to over population.

People have difficulty looking ahead and if there are problems coming that are new they typically go unrecognized and are not ameliorated up front. The majority of people have enough trouble recognizing a repeated problem so expecting them to see a new one coming is unrealistic. We have never before polluted or over populated the planet beyond the "elastic limits" so expecting people to correct a problem they are ignorant of is itself not only over optimistic but displays abysmal ignorance.

If the answers or cures are unpalatable we tend to avoid taking the actions needed. We know it will hurt puppy to cut its tail so we wait, puppy grows, and the problem grows with it. Going to dentist to get cavity filled.... oh no it will hurt. A tooth rotting out hurts worse and is a health hazard but that is "hypothetical" and in the distant(?) future, over the planning horizon.

The real deal is too much population growth. Even the Chinese "get it." It is hard to name many problems of a global scale that wouldn't be helped by a reduction in population. (This certainly includes any effects of human kind as regards negative effects on climate.)

Pat

 

[Rob-D]

And bleeding heart people, both liberals and conservatives, in Europe and North America are determined to save them, feed them, and let them breed. And they have been very effective at it for the last 60 years.

If we hadn't basically treated them like pets (raising them, feeding them and letting them overbreed) they could easily feed themselves with modern agriculture.

The total number of people in Africa grew from 221 million in 1950 to 1 billion in 2009, this does not take into account those that emigrated to Europe and the US and there seems to be no net immigration statistics into Africa. The US grew from 151 million to about 300 million in the same time period (but about 40 million of the 300 million is immigrants). The world went from 2.5 billion to about 7 billion, and there is no immigration or emigration from Earth.

If the world had only doubled in population we wouldn't be so worried about climate change. And perhaps there would be less pollution.

World population is going to grow until something comes along to disrupt it. Major wars, famines, etc.

Blaming Africa isn't resolving anything. What are you doing to reduce your consumption of this planet? Are you net zero? A good portion of the people in Africa live on a watt hour a day or less. How much energy did you use last month? People in this country use more energy going to the store for a quart of milk than a whole African village uses in a week.

So the problem is population, I agree but that's only half the story, the other half is the massive imbalance of energy. The US uses 1/4 of the world's energy, why aren't you complaining about that!

Rob

 

[SPYDERLK]

Yup!!!

I have a small cow calf operation on 160 acres of land that used to be all cotton.There is no visible evidence of the prosperity or the activity or the RR or gins. Latest census shows the population under 400.

My land is pretty much reverted back to pre-cotton conditions as regards grass. My black Angus are raised on grass and the hay they get is baled from their pastures. They get feed supplementation in addition to hay in winter. The supplement is grain based, byproducts for the most part of grain to alcohol process, distillers grains, corn gluten, and soy hulls. I use no growth hormone implants or artificial junk. My beef is beef not chemical beef.

We are over polluting the planet and harming our environment and may be messing up our climate as well. The single greatest factor in pollution and any human contribution to detrimental climate change is first and foremost due to over population.

People have difficulty looking ahead and if there are problems coming that are new they typically go unrecognized and are not ameliorated up front. The majority of people have enough trouble recognizing a repeated problem so expecting them to see a new one coming is unrealistic. We have never before polluted or over populated the planet beyond the "elastic limits" so expecting people to correct a problem they are ignorant of is itself not only over optimistic but displays abysmal ignorance.

The real deal is too much population growth. Even the Chinese "get it." It is hard to name many problems of a global scale that wouldn't be helped by a reduction in population. (This certainly includes any effects of human kind as regards negative effects on climate.)

Pat

You got it.:thumbsup: Pop also makes us, as a civilization, more sensitive to climate change. ... and nearly every other change. It feeds the supply, demand, profit cycle tho ... so slowing human procreation will "hurt" a bunch.
...Rationality is so uncommon.
larry

 

[Rob-D]

You got it.:thumbsup: Pop also makes us, as a civilization, more sensitive to climate change. ... and nearly every other change. It feeds the supply, demand, profit cycle tho ... so slowing human procreation will "hurt" a bunch.
...Rationality is so uncommon.
larry

Again, it's not just population, it's also consumption and we are the world's per capita biggest consumers.

Who's creating more pollution a family in the US or a family in Africa? The US family uses magnitudes more energy and creates logarithmic times greater pollution.

Should we be passing out contraceptives to developing countries? Yes, but we also should be passing out energy rations to those countries that over consume... that's us.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Rob

Rob

 

[Rob-D]

Good grief. I can not believe this topic still exists.

Why should that trouble you?

Is there a limit to how long people should be able to discuss a topic? No topic can last longer than ______ number of posts?

Think about what you're saying.

Rob

 

[Rob-D]

Grass fed beef on land not suitable for crops. That is a growing trend, that's what I raise. I could sell more but I only have ten acres. Most of the worlds population eats very little meat, compared to the U.S.

Populations of Countries that have a near starvation diet usually have a ineffective government. Poor land management, inadequate sanitary conditions, poor water distribution and uncontrolled population growth create a never ending emergency. The amount of cattle and sheep and goats may be a measure of wealth in areas of the world where land ownership has no practical advantage.

In parts of Africa people starve while they are surrounded by cattle. They also allow the cattle to die of starvation instead of eating them. India has a huge cattle count, the majority will never be eaten.

It may sound cruel but every time we send food to starving people it creates a ripple effect of new births and a new cycle of need. See it, understand it. Solve the long term problem, not the knee jerk plane flight of rice to countries that highjack the food supply to resell to the highest bidder.

The world needs less people not less cows.

Enjoy your meat but we eat too much beef. People eating a 16 oz. steak? Do you have any idea how detrimental to the human body that is?

Even organic beef is up on the food chain, what does it take, seven times the grain to feed cattle than humans? Then there's the water needed.

The higher we eat on the food chain the more chlorinated hydrocarbons (pollution) we ingest, that's why Swordfish got banned in the 70's. Even if you grow organic beef, it's still getting planetary pollution. A vegetable has a much shorter life span and thus absorbs less pollution that cattle. It takes much less energy to make and is much better for a long intestinal tract. Meat putrefies in long intestinal tracts, how often do mountain gorillas eat meat? Are they weak, malnourished? No.

OK so eat meat if you enjoy it but let's not kid anyone about its benefits, they're low. This idea that we need meat at every meal is simply wrong and unhealthy. We need vegetables, that should be the mainstay of the human diet, not meat. The planet will be better off too.

Rob

 

[Furu]

'CFL's are full of mercury and bad.' No, CFL's us 1/5 the energy of incandescent lights, there's more mercury in your mother's old thermometer than there is a CFL, 600 times more! Coal plants pump more mercury in to the environment powering incandescent lights than there is mercury in CFL's.
CFL's are not a liberal ploy! Talk about the lemmings running into the sea!

Rob

I do not disagree with everything you said however......

CFL's do indeed use much less energy than incandescents as you said. Unfortunately they do not last longer, as advertised, and my experience often burn out much quicker especially in the flood light form (you did not address that issue.)
You are wrong about the amount of mercury being less than in an old thermometer. Having unfortunately broken a CFL and had to clean up the aftermath I have first hand knowledge. I also broke an old thermometer (30 years ago) and had to clean that up and there is no comparison to the quantities involved. Trying to find a safe proper way of disposing of the spilled mercury is a nightmare. Loose/free mercury is not like a normal spilled liquid/water if you have never seen it free in the environment. Technically it is a metal, the only one that is liquid at room temperature. The folks that take CFL's for recycling will not consider the mercury from a bulb breakage and you do not want to just put it in the trash or any normal disposal method.