What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Meanz Beanz]

I just found out about an LNG system for cars that delivers liquid hydrocarbon to the cylinder. They claim more power and 10% better economy than petrol, its normally the other way around with LNG! It achieves a sort of chemical super charging delivering colder, denser, more heavily fuel laden air to the cylinder. Considering that LNG is 50c to 70c a litre and we have heaps of it down here thats a good thing!

So anyway I'd say yes... you are prolly right but I dunno for sure!

Cheers
Mbz

[Riverrat1969]

Climate change is inevitable, and continual..........not my opinion, but fact born out by geologic history. This part of Virginia used to be a shallow tropical sea twenty million years ago; dig down twenty feet and you find Miocene Period fossils........ can anyone say that THAT period of global warming was caused by man?

I won't deny that man made gases from factories and vehicles may contribute to SOME warming, but can anyone define how many undersea vents releasing methane gas are on the sea floor? No, they all haven't been discovered yet.

Can anyone give a solid number of how many CFS of these gases are vented yearly? Do these gases vent at a steady rate, or are these rates cyclical, similar to seismic activity?

Can anyone accurately predict when the next volcano will erupt, and give a definitive number on how many CFS of gas it will expel? How many cubic yards of debris will it blow into the atmosphere?

The bottom line, in my opinion, is that the proportion of man made "hot house gases" are about as significant as a hiccup in a hurricane, compared to what our planet naturally belches and farts out on a daily basis.

Ok, let's say that global warming is real, that the ice caps are melting, and the ocean levels are rising..........so what? We can't change the natural cycles of nature, despite what the huckster politicians and the quasi-governmental "Green" groups would like for us to believe.

Rising sea levels will make coastal cities become new Venice-like cities. More territorial shallow waters will mean more fishing grounds, and newly formed coast lines will be the source of money, making new communities and resort areas. Adaptation is man's best quality.

I hear about the polar bears losing their ice; they'll go extinct. Well, Darwin's theory will probably allow the polar bears to evolve, and adapt, and become more like brown bears AGAIN.........like they were before turning white, and getting longer necks.

Newly formed coast lines, new cruising areas, new fishing grounds, lower fuel bills for home heating, less money expended on snow plowing roads to keep them open.........I see opportunity, not doom. Mother Earth breathes, farts, and lives..........nothing stays in a static condition for long. Change and adapt is what we can do, and the fear mongering created by the doom and gloom segment of society is merely a carney sham to shake us down for more money.

The next thing you know, we'll being seeing "Vince", from the Sham Wow advertisements, on television, hustling us for some global warming scam.

http://www.shamwow.com

The next thing will be "Vince for President".........."I'll bring you change, and guarantee the Whitehouse windows will be cleaner than ever!"

Bottom line: whatever is happening, will happen. We will adapt. The Peri Reis map of 1513 shows that mankind knew of the Antarctic land mass.........and mapped it..........when there was no ice covering of Antarctica. Hhhmmm.........must have been really warm during mankind's inhabitation of the earth millenia ago.
Do you suppose the political hustlers back then were pandering to the global cooling crowd?

[the1much]

i think we ALL agree MAN is not the cause of the "normal" warming or cooling,,,,but thats "NORMAL",,,but,,,,can anyone give what the "normal" #'s are for a "natural" warming?,, and just because its happened before,, without OUR help,,,does that mean its happening this time for the same reason? for all we know some big@ss comet might have caused the last warming,,,,,,NO ONE knows.so unless you KNOW,, and can show PROOF of "why" them last coolings and warmings have happened,,, then ya all just p!ssing in the wind.
and having a history of "millions" of years,,,,and something happens once or twice,,,that makes it "natural" all of a sudden?,,, most kids have lied to their parents a "few" times in their lives,,,,so should the parents expect and do nothing about,, the next time their kid lies?

[masalai]

Jim an excellent analogy - My Lovely Lady was impressed, as her Doctoral thesis is heavily into using analogies as a teaching method.....

[the1much]

i aint smat nuff to say things the regular way,,, need to find ways of saying it not using words over 6 letters long,,hehe

[masalai]

Getting better Jim, some werds are 8?

[bntii]

Jimbo,

“DDT has very similar effects as pyrethrins and pyrethroids, both of which remain in use to this day. As mentioned in the articles I cited, thinning of egg shells has many different causes.“

Bunk- these are “bio-pesticides” selected specifically due to the lack of toxicity demonstrated by Organochlorines such as DDT. Pyrethrin is a natural product derived from chrysanthemums.


“In at least three of the articles turned up in the Google search you suggested, high serum mercury levels were also present. This is also known to cause egg shell thinning, but has nothing to do with DDT exposure. No attempt was made (or could be made?) to factor this out.”

That literature search cites some 4500 papers……..


“What about the carefully controlled feeding experiments that showed DDT didn't cause egg shell thinning? Don't they count? Could it be (as suggested in the articles I cited ) that many of the original conclusions are suspect?”

Please see referenced material:

“DDT and its metabolites can lower the reproductive rate of birds by
causing eggshell thinning (which leads to egg breakage) and by causing
embryo deaths. However, different groups of birds vary greatly in
their sensitivity to these chemicals; predatory birds are extremely
sensitive and, in the wild, often show marked shell thinning, whilst
gallinaceous birds are relatively insensitive. Because of the
difficulties of breeding birds of prey in captivity, much of the
experimental work has been done with insensitive species, which have
often shown little or no shell thinning.”


“Trying to arrive at a conclusion as to what is causing a problem like egg shell thinning in wild birds has to be a very daunting task as there are so many confounding factors, not the least of which is other industrial pollutants like mercury. I'd personally put a lot more stock in a controlled feeding experiment where all the animal's serum levels can be controlled.”

These studies are well represented in the literature


"Extrapolated LD-50"

Please try to stay focused:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...d-herring.html


“And none of these earlier environmental studies seem to take into account the sheer tragic numbers of these animals that 'sport' shooters (used to) slaughter. I think at the time it was happening it was just not a well-known fact. Many western states had certain 'gather points' where thousands of raptors of different species used to congregate. The so-called 'sport' hunters loved these places and would sit there and shoot these birds down all day. Certain government bounties probably did a lot to foster a hatred of these birds as pests, too.”

There is a broad difference between reproductive success and adult mortality


“The truth is their numbers were already on the rebound years before DDT was ever banned (largely due to changing attitudes of the sport shooters) begging the question once again of how DDT could have been the cause of their decline in the first place.”

The truth is that in spite of dramatic rebounds, reproductive success is still low in many areas due to the highly persistent nature of this poison in the environment:

“As the climate warms, frozen stores of the insecticide DDT are trickling out of Antarctic glaciers and building up in penguins, say researchers”



Perhaps we should take this lead and return to topic,

Thomas

[Petros]

http://acuf.org/issues/issue114/080817cul.asp

Warming Consensus Shattered

by Dennis T. Avery

Issue 114 - August 20, 2008

The "consensus" on man-made global warming may have received a mortal wound.

Physics & Society, The journal of the 46,000-member American Physical Society, just published "Climate Sensitivity Revisited," by Viscount Christopher Monckton. Monckton is an avowed man-made warming skeptic, and former science advisor to the late British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

(If you want to see the science, go here. http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newslet...7/monckton.cfm

Viscount Monckton contends that the climate alarmists have mistakenly pre-programmed their computer models with equations that overstate the earth’s sensitivity to CO2 by 500 to 2,000 percent—thus creating a senseless First World panic that itself threatens the future of society.

Physics & Society says: "There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution. Since the correctness or fallacy of that conclusion has immense implications for public policy and for the future of the biosphere, we thought it appropriate to present a debate within the pages of P&S."

The journal then offers both the Monckton paper and a response by David Hafemeister and Peter Schwartz, of the California Polytechnic Institute. P&S also issued an open invitation to "further contributions from the physics community."

It had to happen. Too much evidence has mounted against CO2 as a cause of the modern warming. Sea ice is expanding globally, not retreating (especially in the Antarctic). The oceans have stopped rising, and actually started to fall; that might be because they "stopped warming 4–5 years ago" according to NASA, based on data from the 3,000 new Argo floats now scattered world-wide. The number and intensity of hurricanes, cyclones, and tornadoes hasn’t increased. Rain has returned to Australia, reminding us again it is naturally the driest continent on earth.

The crowning blow: After nine years of non-warming, the planet actually began to cool in 2007 and 2008 for the first time in 30 years. The net warming from 1940 to 1998 had been a miniscule 0.2 degree C; the UK’s Hadley Centre says earth’s temperature has now dropped back down to about the levels of 100 years ago. There has thus been no net global warming within "living memory"!

The current cooling doesn’t mean another Ice Age is looming. There is massive global evidence of a 1,500-year warming cycle, going back 1 million years. It may be driven by the slightly varying distance between the earth and the sun. The sunspot index has had a 79 percent correlation with the earth’s thermometer record since 1860, during this time, the temperature correlation with CO2 is a dismissive 22 percent.

NASA’s Jason satellite tells us the Pacific Ocean has entered a cool phase. Historically, these have lasted 25–30 years. After that, there may be some additional warming. However, the 1,500-year cycles typically shift abruptly; we should already have most of this one’s warming. When we’ll get the inevitable cooling? Probably centuries from now.

The warming debate is far from over, but an actual debate looks likely. Reputations and huge bundles of cash have been bet on man-made warming, including billions in government funding for climate research. The UN’s reputation—and perhaps its future—are on the line.

The American Physical Society itself has issued a statement: It stands by its belief that human-emitted CO2 is "changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the earth’s climate" and notes that Physics & Society is not peer-reviewed. Nonetheless, the debate is finally and openly joined, after 20 years of the Greens proclaiming humanity’s guilt for wrecking the planet as beyond sane discussion.

Now, we look forward to a full-scale exploration of the science. We have heard quite enough from the computers.

DENNIS T. AVERY is a senior fellow for the Hudson Institute in Washington, DC and is the Director for the Center for Global Food Issues. (www.cgfi.org) He was formerly a senior analyst for the Department of State. He is co-author, with S. Fred Singer, of Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Hundred Years,

[bntii]

There is no challange to the consensus:

http://duoquartuncia.blogspot.com/20...were-they.html

Fun to follow the debacle, but this is not a valid scientific paper.

[Meanz Beanz]

This DDT thing blows me away, I grew up with the unquestioned "knowledge" that this stuff was deadly and not to be trusted, then I find that some dude has been eating it and survived to 84 only to die of a heart attack, presumably not DDT related ---> I really don't know what to make of it all?

[masalai]

Heinz, Just another mystery to add to the collection?

[Meanz Beanz]

LOL... these days I don't believe what I say let alone what they say!

[bntii]

"I grew up with the unquestioned "knowledge" that this stuff was deadly and not to be trusted"


Perhaps you grew up with a lot of misconceptions

I used to ride my bike in clouds of the stuff when we would chase the spraying trucks.

The toxicology in regards to humans is not in questions here-

The premise that reproduction in raptors is not effected by DDT in the environment is.

[the1much]

Originally Posted by Meanz Beanz

This DDT thing blows me away, I grew up with the unquestioned "knowledge" that this stuff was deadly and not to be trusted, then I find that some dude has been eating it and survived to 84 only to die of a heart attack, presumably not DDT related ---> I really don't know what to make of it all?

i breathe more paint fumes then ANYONE you know,,and you wouldnt know if i didnt tell you,,,, does that mean its not bad to breathe?.how come some people can smoke crack for years,,and some smoke it once and die?

[Meanz Beanz]

Originally Posted by bntii

Perhaps you grew up with a lot of misconceptions

That's as maybe but it was just the popular view that I had no reason to challenge or think about, not leading a rural life... they stopped using it for a reason... or so I figured, you know smart people make these decisions.... right?

We all live with a lot of misconceptions, I seem to be running into more and more, and more stuff that once taken for granted now turns out to be not quite what it seemed.

The older I get the more confused it gets.... or is that me