ForumGarden

What happened is that I expressed an opinion...nothing more. A response to what you said. And a fervent wish that you'll change your mind.

Im going based solely on what I know. I am still doing my own research on the subject. Perhaps in the future I will Change My views. But for now i can only apologize for any strife that may have been caused by my posts. So, "I'm Sorry."

Your posts haven't caused any trouble. I'd just suggest that you educate yourself and then begin to do what you can do to help heal the earth.

I'll do that!:)

Truth? We need to get moving TODAY! We need to recognize that today is the last day before it falls apart.

Ignore those who think that they need to "let the world heal itself."

I just spent the last few hours researching and WOW! I had no Idea things were that bad!!



Lulu, I retract all my previous arguments. You were 100% right. People need to take action today!!

wow things are not looking great for the grand children and they are not even born yet



what are practical things we can all do to help out



1) get a smaller car



2) insolulate the house



come on guys i need a list for the kids to take to school but please keep it simple (for me not the kids)

jimbo wrote: wow things are not looking great for the grand children and they are not even born yet



what are practical things we can all do to help out



1) get a smaller car



2) insolulate the house



come on guys i need a list for the kids to take to school but please keep it simple (for me not the kids)Get a diesel or electric vehicle. All that black smoke from a diesel actually fall to the ground, unlike the nearly invisible fumes from a gas engine which causes pollution.



Stay away from CFCs (chloro-florocarbins or something like that), which means upgrade your air conditioners (home and car) that have the old freon.



Grow your own crops to stop supporting the chemical-laden farming industry and polluting trucking industry.



Make your own compost so you won't use the polluting chemicals found in commercial fertilizers.



Trace any finished goods you use regularly back to its sources. Stop using any that require the use of petroleum products or coal.



Use a gas barbecue instead of charcoal. Charcoal releases carbon monoxide.



I'm sure there's more.

Since I started posting on this topic a few months ago, I started reading up on latest studies published over the past 2 years on climate data from a varity of sources. When I look at the latest data I am starting to think that already manmade emissions are triggering a feedback effect in the clmate that is causing an increased rate of CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions from natural processes, (such as the changes in the great forested belt of the planet that goes from Canada across Northen Russia and Siberia) as it seems to me that the very rapidly acceralting rate of CO2 in the atmosphere can't be just the result of an increase in industrial activity, that to me is disturbing in the extreme. From 2004 to 2005 there was a rise of almost 3ppm globally in atmospheric CO2 levels over just a 12 month period, it might not seem like a lot, but trust me, it is. When you realize that CO2 levels remained more or less fixed in the 260 to 270 ppm range for 100,000 years, the trend over the last few decades of a very sharp increase which is accerlating it has to be a cause of uptmost concern. I have to admit that the more I look at recent study findings, the more concerned I am becomming, and I can understand why leading climate scientists are becomming increasingly alarmed, I would also say to people that the public statements being made by climate scientists are far more optimistic that the ones they are making privatly within the scientific community itself, (perhaps they are worried about causing panic).

I am really starting to think that we are facing the real possibility of an ecological diaster of unprecedented proportions within a pretty short space of time, perhaps 10 to 20 years. I've always been wary of that sort of "the end is near" type hysteria that seems to grip people from time to time, but I honestly am starting to consider that we may well be entering into a very frightening period of wholesale ecological disruption, I don't mean to frighten people or sound alarmist, and I am not expert with all of the facts, after I graduated I went working on other areas of Chemistry and so I can't say I am a climate expert, but I do have a reasonale understanding of the implications of climate data due to my training. And from my reading of it, all the data recently seem to suggest that something very very serious is happening worldwide. No wholesale climate changes have occurred in the manner of what is being recorded now at least since the last glacial period of earth's climate history, which is about 11,000 years ago, and I'm not sure what that implies, but it suggests to me that serious alarm bells are ringing

Accountable wrote: Get a diesel or electric vehicle. All that black smoke from a diesel actually fall to the ground, unlike the nearly invisible fumes from a gas engine which causes pollution.



Stay away from CFCs (chloro-florocarbins or something like that), which means upgrade your air conditioners (home and car) that have the old freon.



Grow your own crops to stop supporting the chemical-laden farming industry and polluting trucking industry.



Make your own compost so you won't use the polluting chemicals found in commercial fertilizers.



Trace any finished goods you use regularly back to its sources. Stop using any that require the use of petroleum products or coal.



Use a gas barbecue instead of charcoal. Charcoal releases carbon monoxide.



I'm sure there's more.


Carbon dioxide is much of the issue.

Buy an economical vehicle, one that does 50+ MPG. Don't use it unnecessarily.

Car-share if possible. Walk or cycle short distances.

Don't fly in aeroplanes.

Buy food that was grown near you.

Insulate your house and/or turn the heating down. Wear clothes to keep warm,

rather than walking around in e T-shirt with the heating turned up.

Switch things off rather than leaving them "on standby".

Reduce your energy use as much as you can.

Re-cycle.

I'm sure there are more!

Some of these things aren't very easy to gey onesself to do.

Fibonacci wrote: Essex also explained that the earth’s so-called greenhouse effect does not work like a greenhouse. "Incoming solar radiation adds energy to the Earth’s surface," he said. To restore radiative balance the energy must be transported back to space in roughly the same amounts that it arrived in. The energy is transported via two processes – infrared radiation (heat transfer) and fluid dynamics (turbulence).

A real greenhouse works by preventing fluid motions, such as the wind, by enclosing an area with plastic or glass. To restore balance, infrared radiation must increase, thereby causing the temperature to rise. Predicting the resulting temperature increase is a relatively straightforward process.

But the "greenhouse effect" works differently. Greenhouse gases slow down outgoing infrared radiation, which causes the fluid dynamics to adjust. But it cannot be predicted what will happen because the equations which govern fluid dynamics cannot be solved! Scientists cannot even predict the flow of water through a pipe, let alone the vastly more complex fluid dynamics of the climate system. "No one can compute from first principles what the climate will do," said Essex. "It may warm, or cool, or nothing at all!" Saying that the greenhouse effect works the same way as a greenhouse, which is a solvable problem, creates certainty where none exists, said Essex.


I really haven't had time to read all of this pseudo science but this caught my eye - mainly because the concept that an inaccurate analogy somehow means that there can be no underlying truth.

Firstly, there are not two mechanisms for heat transference, there are three - conduction, convection and radiation. Due to the fact the the Earth is surrounded by a vacuum, neither conduction nor convection can operate, therefore, the concept the "fluid dynamics" is an operant in Earth warming is just plain wrong - it can affect heat distribution within the ecosphere but it cannot affect the total heat contained within the ecosphere.

The operant mechanism is radiation and this is where the analogy with a greenhouse comes in. Heat enters the system in the form of light - a form of energy to which both the atmosphere and glass are transparent (neither adsorb energy from light). Having been adsorbed by the ground, plants, water etc. this energy causes the adsorbing material to warm us, thus increasing it's output of energy in the infra-red (the hotter something becomes the more infra-red it emits until it becomes hot enough to emit red light (becomes red-hot). Unfortunately, both glass and greenhouse gasses are opaque in the infra-red and re-adsorb the energy keeping it within the system.

There is a mitigating factor – as the mean temperature of the ecosphere increases the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere, and therefore cloud, increases. This can reflect some of the incoming light before it is deep enough into the system to be adsorbed. This increase in the Earth's albedo in not, however, enough to fully offset the greenhouse effect.

So whilst the increase in the Earth's mean temperature will cause the “fluid dynamics” to adjust (the weather will go crazy) this is nothing to do with getting rid of the heat. Whilst we cannot accurately predict what the weather will do (when could we ever) we can predict what the mean temperature will do.

Accountable wrote:

Use a gas barbecue instead of charcoal. Charcoal releases carbon monoxide.




The burning of any fossil fuel releases carbon dioxide (the main greenhouse gas - carbon monoxide is the poison that's released when your fire does not have enough ventilation and, although it's also a greenhouse gas, there far less of it).

Even using electricity just moves the source of the polution back to the generating station that burns the fossil fuel.

The only exception to this is a nuclear power plant - no increase in global warming but it does have its own problems.

Fibonacci wrote: Bryn:



Enlighten Us On what exactly we Have to Do.

Also elaborate on the restricted time scale.


You still have not answered.:-2

Bryn Mawr wrote: I really haven't had time to read all of this pseudo science but this caught my eye - mainly because the concept that an inaccurate analogy somehow means that there can be no underlying truth.



Firstly, there are not two mechanisms for heat transference, there are three - conduction, convection and radiation. Due to the fact the the Earth is surrounded by a vacuum, neither conduction nor convection can operate, therefore, the concept the "fluid dynamics" is an operant in Earth warming is just plain wrong - it can affect heat distribution within the ecosphere but it cannot affect the total heat contained within the ecosphere.



The operant mechanism is radiation and this is where the analogy with a greenhouse comes in. Heat enters the system in the form of light - a form of energy to which both the atmosphere and glass are transparent (neither adsorb energy from light). Having been adsorbed by the ground, plants, water etc. this energy causes the adsorbing material to warm us, thus increasing it's output of energy in the infra-red (the hotter something becomes the more infra-red it emits until it becomes hot enough to emit red light (becomes red-hot). Unfortunately, both glass and greenhouse gasses are opaque in the infra-red and re-adsorb the energy keeping it within the system.



There is a mitigating factor – as the mean temperature of the ecosphere increases the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere, and therefore cloud, increases. This can reflect some of the incoming light before it is deep enough into the system to be adsorbed. This increase in the Earth's albedo in not, however, enough to fully offset the greenhouse effect.



So whilst the increase in the Earth's mean temperature will cause the “fluid dynamics to adjust (the weather will go crazy) this is nothing to do with getting rid of the heat. Whilst we cannot accurately predict what the weather will do (when could we ever) we can predict what the mean temperature will do.


That post was made in my ignorance. I have since retracted it.

Fibonacci wrote: You still have not answered.:-2


Gi'us a chance - I've only just got back to my computer



Firstly, drasticly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions - both industrial and personal. This will require govermental co-operation as well as individual concience.

Secondly, reverse the globasl deforestation. This will involve both change of use of materials and compensation for the loggers in the poorer countries.

Thirdly, a move away from fossil fuel power generation (see (1)) to a combination of wind, wave and nuclear power.

Fourthly, carbon fixing on a large scale. Effectively reversing our release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by turning atmospheric CO2 into solid carbon for storage.

Start now and on a large scale with all of these measures and we *might* have a chance of surviving this.

Fibonacci wrote: That post was made in my ignorance. I have since retracted it.


Sorry- I hadn't got that far when I replied

It's cool!

Bryn Mawr wrote: The burning of any fossil fuel releases carbon dioxide (the main greenhouse gas - carbon monoxide is the poison that's released when your fire does not have enough ventilation and, although it's also a greenhouse gas, there far less of it).



Even using electricity just moves the source of the polution back to the generating station that burns the fossil fuel.



The only exception to this is a nuclear power plant - no increase in global warming but it does have its own problems.My mistake. Alter that to read "Only eat raw meat", Jimbo.

Accountable wrote: "Only eat raw meat"


:eek: NOooooooooooooo!

Accountable wrote: My mistake. Alter that to read "Only eat raw meat", Jimbo.


??????????????????



ok anything to stop global warming

guys just saw something on tv it says the earths magnetic field is failing and we could all be toasted by cosmic radiation :-3



but i'm probably jumping to the wrong conclusion



where is lulu or bryn when you need them

jimbo wrote: guys just saw something on tv it says the earths magnetic field is failing and we could all be toasted by cosmic radiation :-3



but i'm probably jumping to the wrong conclusion



where is lulu or bryn when you need them


I have been told by certain members of the forum that this is an American plot, it is actually only going to fail over Iran and North Korea..:rolleyes:

jimbo wrote: guys just saw something on tv it says the earths magnetic field is failing and we could all be toasted by cosmic radiation :-3



but i'm probably jumping to the wrong conclusion



where is lulu or bryn when you need them


They're probably referring to a magnetic reversal there the Earth's magnetic field flips north for south.

Evidence of such events is found in the crust around the mid ocean fault where fresh rock is being deposited continuously in a conveyor system - an excelent medium for recording the magnetic strengh and direction over time.

Some theories predict a period of zero field in the middle of the flip - one theory suggests that it's the Earth that flips whilst the field stays constant. There is no consensus on the effects on life during a reversal but, if the field drops to zero for any length of time, it could be severe.

We're overdue a reversal and it could happen anytime in the next thousand years or so.

Bryn Mawr wrote: They're probably referring to a magnetic reversal there the Earth's magnetic field flips north for south.

Evidence of such events is found in the crust around the mid ocean fault where fresh rock is being deposited continuously in a conveyor system - an excelent medium for recording the magnetic strengh and direction over time.

Some theories predict a period of zero field in the middle of the flip - one theory suggests that it's the Earth that flips whilst the field stays constant. There is no consensus on the effects on life during a reversal but, if the field drops to zero for any length of time, it could be severe.

We're overdue a reversal and it could happen anytime in the next thousand years or so.


Wow, that's wild. Is this an instantaneous occurance or does it take some time?

zinkyusa wrote: Wow, that's wild. Is this an instantaneous occurance or does it take some time?


i have read about this on the internet. its easy to find.

zinkyusa wrote: Wow, that's wild. Is this an instantaneous occurance or does it take some time?


Which one? It's difficult to give a timeframe for the straight magnetic reversal when the recording medium moves at an inch a year or slower but the turning Earth theory suggested 24 hours.

If you're interested, look for a book called "The Reversing Earth" by Peter Warlow.

Bryn Mawr wrote: Which one? It's difficult to give a timeframe for the straight magnetic reversal when the recording medium moves at an inch a year or slower but the turning Earth theory suggested 24 hours.



If you're interested, look for a book called "The Reversing Earth" by Peter Warlow.


once again Bryn the voice of reason whilst jimbo runs around like a headless chicken i can now sleep well knowing i have nothing to worry about for the next 1000 years give or take thank you sir

jimbo wrote: once again Bryn the voice of reason whilst jimbo runs around like a headless chicken i can now sleep well knowing i have nothing to worry about for the next 1000 years give or take thank you sir


:-4 Jimbo :-4

cherandbuster wrote: :-4 Jimbo :-4


cher i really think you should set your alarm so as you can get up at the same time as the brits on this forum ,so as we dont have to wait till the afternoon for your company



lets put it too a vote



jim says yes

jimbo wrote: cher i really think you should set your alarm so as you can get up at the same time as the brits on this forum ,so as we dont have to wait till the afternoon for your company



lets put it too a vote



jim says yes


Aye

+++++++++++++ From the UCS report in my email...."Last week, a team of independent scientists and researchers, in collaboration with the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), released a new report detailing how global warming is poised to substantially change the climate in the Northeast.

The report—Climate Change in the U.S. Northeast—details the effects heat-trapping emissions will have if they are not curtailed. From rising temperatures to fewer snow covered days, increased sea level, and more extreme weather events—the study demonstrates "The very notion of the Northeast as we know it is at stake. The near-term emissions choices we make in the Northeast and throughout the world will help determine the climate and quality of life our children and grandchildren experience."

— Dr. Cameron Wake,

Research Associate Professor,

University of New Hampshire's

Climate Change Research Center



that the severity of climate change in the region will be greatly affected by the choices that citizens, governments, and businesses make today.



Using new state-of-the-art research on recent and projected changes in the Northeast’s regional climate, the study finds that without strong leadership and action, by late-century:

Northeast winters could warm by eight to 12 degrees Fahrenheit and summers by six to nearly 14 degrees.

The length of the region’s winter snow season could be cut in half.

The frequency of short-term droughts could increase significantly.

Sea-level could rise from eight inches to as much three feet.

Many Northeast cities can expect about 25 days per year over 100 degrees. (Currently, Northeast cities experience this type of heat only once or twice a year.)

The report provides an accessible overview of these new climate findings and outlines what we can do to reduce global warming pollution from energy use, vehicles, and buildings and industry. Reducing heat-trapping emissions is the most important step to curbing the rate and extent of climate change.

The findings received wide press coverage throughout the Northeast region, including the front pages of the Boston Globe, the Hartford Courant, and the Providence Journal. "

+++++++++++++ Obviously, this report is aimed at the States, but this will certainly impact Canada, too.

Lulu2 wrote:

Northeast winters could warm by eight to 12 degrees Fahrenheit and summers by six to nearly 14 degrees.

The length of the region’s winter snow season could be cut in half.

The frequency of short-term droughts could increase significantly.

Sea-level could rise from eight inches to as much three feet.

Many Northeast cities can expect about 25 days per year over 100 degrees. (Currently, Northeast cities experience this type of heat only once or twice a year.)

The report provides an accessible overview of these new climate findings and outlines what we can do to reduce global warming pollution from energy use, vehicles, and buildings and industry. Reducing heat-trapping emissions is the most important step to curbing the rate and extent of climate change.




Changes of this magnitude would have a devastating effect on the regions flora and fauna. The other effect would be to increase the severity of weather changes - bad droughts followed by flash floods followed by hurricanes.

I love the global warming myth. This Earth has warmed and cooled so many times in the past 100,000 years. Our last Ice Age was just 10,000 years ago. Go back and look at the geology ...........NM was a swamp at one time.........

The fact that it's happened in the past isn't being disputed by anyone!

If you'll stop and try to imagine us all living in another ice age, you MIGHT begin to understand the immediacy and the complexity of this problem.

Actually reading through this thread would be a good place to begin, too.

Lulu2 wrote: The fact that it's happened in the past isn't being disputed by anyone!

If you'll stop and try to imagine us all living in another ice age, you MIGHT begin to understand the immediacy and the complexity of this problem.

Actually reading through this thread would be a good place to begin, too.


I thought we were Global warming! :-5

Nobody really understands the long-term implications of global warming. Extreme climate changes will devastate the earth and make life as we know it impossible. I was trying to use an example which you used...the ice age.

Lulu2 wrote: Nobody really understands the long-term implications of global warming. Extreme climate changes will devastate the earth and make life as we know it impossible. I was trying to use an example which you used...the ice age.


Mankind cannot possibly understand the way this Earth works. There have been several rebirths of life and deaths of life on this planet for over 240,000,000 years.

nvalleyvee wrote: I thought we were Global warming! :-5


One of the likely scenarios is that, as the temperature rises and the ice caps melt. the run off of the fresh water into the polar seas so reduces the dencity of the water that it turns off the ocean conveyer which carries heat from the equator to the poles.

This would have the effect of re-freezing the ice caps to such an extent that the added reflection from the ice would cause us to dump into an ice age.

This is known to have happened at least twice in the past with desasterous concequences.

nvalleyvee wrote: Mankind cannot possibly understand the way this Earth works. There have been several rebirths of life and deaths of life on this planet for over 240,000,000 years.


Whilst we cannot fully understand the micro processes we do have a reasonable understanding of the macro processes involved.

If we carry on as we are the only rebirth for the planet will be after we have managed to kill us.

nvalleyvee wrote: I love the global warming myth. This Earth has warmed and cooled so many times in the past 100,000 years. Our last Ice Age was just 10,000 years ago. Go back and look at the geology ...........NM was a swamp at one time.........Yup.



Okay, maybe we are speeding up the warming process (oh hush, ya'll! Go take your blood pressure meds), but we are MAN, dammit! We have the ingenuity to survive space (unless the conspiracists are right ). We can certainly survive a long winter - er, summer - whatever.

Accountable wrote:

Okay, maybe we are speeding up the warming process (oh hush, ya'll! Go take your blood pressure meds), but we are MAN, dammit! We have the ingenuity to survive space (unless the conspiracists are right ). We can certainly survive a long winter - er, summer - whatever.


We can't do that and keep going the way we are at the moment, though, can

we. What would happen if there was an impact on a) available land area, and

b) available food.

Bill Sikes wrote: We can't do that and keep going the way we are at the moment, though, can

we. What would happen if there was an impact on a) available land area, and

b) available food.We persevere. We adapt, We overcome.

Bryn Mawr wrote: Changes of this magnitude would have a devastating effect on the regions flora and fauna.
Some say (.pdf) that we've got 10% of the world's species comitted to extinction now, with the 0.8°C we've already created.

And 30% by 2050 under "business as usual".

Bored_Wombat wrote: Some say (.pdf) that we've got 10% of the world's species comitted to extinction now, with the 0.8°C we've already created.

And 30% by 2050 under "business as usual".


don't rely to much on the extinction data wombat, it's normal for species to go extinct, that's not to say we are not speeding up the process for some..

jimbo wrote: so intelligent people of the forum what are your views
My view has, for many years, been: Never assume that since a person is pouring drinks that they are an idiot. :yh_wink :yh_wink

Accountable wrote: We persevere. We adapt, We overcome. Occasionally only the very rich or very brutal overcome, but we do it.

Of course, in the case where it is pointed out that it would be much better on every level to do something about emissions soon, we overcome that too.

And when the food runs out, there's always cannibalism. How useful are the very old and very young anyway?

And when the sea comes in, as it did in New Orleans, we can overcome. We overcome by not doing anything about it, and letting people die. Where is the downside?

It's the whole planning ahead thing that is misguided. It amazes me that people can sell refrigerators. If you have spare food for tomorrow, you're just not relying on your perseverance and adaptability.

Bored_Wombat wrote: Occasionally only the very rich or very brutal overcome, but we do it.

Of course, in the case where it is pointed out that it would be much better on every level to do something about emissions soon, we overcome that too.

And when the food runs out, there's always cannibalism. How useful are the very old and very young anyway?

And when the sea comes in, as it did in New Orleans, we can overcome. We overcome by not doing anything about it, and letting people die. Where is the downside?

It's the whole planning ahead thing that is misguided. It amazes me that people can sell refrigerators. If you have spare food for tomorrow, you're just not relying on your perseverance and adaptability.


I hear that the conservative right in America is developing plans to use liberals as human shields if the muslim extremists attack us. Alternatively they plan on eating the liberals when the food runs out as it is well known that they taste like chicken..

Sean Hannity ate Alan Colmes for a snack last night on FNN

zinkyusa wrote: don't rely to much on the extinction data wombat, it's normal for species to go extinct It is not at all normal, it is highly unusual and should be avoided at any cost. On average one species every five or six years goes extinct. And that average includes mass extinctions like the end of the Cretaceous - in the absence of meteor strikes or industrial revolutions, extinctions are extremely rare.

Were are currently packing about one species every twenty minutes off to the never-to-be-seen-again. If you're a city body, and don't value biodiversity for its own sake, note that the study of many of these species would certainly supply technologies or pharmaceuticals that would cure human ailments. We've probably lost a few cures for cancer already.

Bored_Wombat wrote: It is not at all normal, it is highly unusual and should be avoided at any cost. On average one species every five or six years goes extinct. And that average includes mass extinctions like the end of the Cretaceous - in the absence of meteor strikes or industrial revolutions, extinctions are extremely rare.

Were are currently packing about one species every twenty minutes off to the never-to-be-seen-again. If you're a city body, and don't value biodiversity for its own sake, note that the study of many of these species would certainly supply technologies or pharmaceuticals that would cure human ailments. We've probably lost a few cures for cancer already.


I think the point is that the rate of species extinction is occuring at 100 to 1000 times the normal rate..