WR - Global Warming - A thread for all those who know better than scientists

WR (http://forums.webrats.com/index.php)

- Edge of the Hole (http://forums.webrats.com/forumdisplay.php?f=34)

- - Global Warming - A thread for all those who know better than scientists (http://forums.webrats.com/showthread.php?t=139351)

Global Warming - A thread for all those who know better than scientists

It is starting to sound like a broken record on this sight....

Quote:

There is no evidence of global warming!!!!!!

Lets look at some of the evidence that I guess just does not exist.....

Quote:

New Study Links CO2 to Paleozoic Extinctions

A new study by paleoecologist Margaret Fraiser at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, offers an interesting new theory behind the cause of the Earth's largest extinction: copious carbon-dioxide

When most people hear the phrase "the earth's largest extinction", they think dinosaurs.

Margaret Frasier knows better. As a paleoecologist, she knows that the Earth's largest mass extinction of life occurred at the end of the Permian Period at the end of the Paleozoic Era; 252 million years before the first T-Rex ever walked the earth. The extinction destroyed the large land amphibians' dominance of the land, and paved the way for dinosaurs to emerge as the dominant land species.

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee professor Margaret Frasier is studying this extinction avidly, looking for possible details to further our understandings of what might have caused this landmark event.

Her recent conclusions, published in an Elsevier journal [1] [2] (PDF) and detailed in a recent press release titled "When Bivalves Ruled the World," describe an Earth with run-away carbon dioxide levels. She concludes that the Permian-Triassic mass-extinction was caused by toxic, oxygen-less oceans created by too much atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2).

The Permian-Triassic extinction event wiped out nearly 70 percent of species on land and 95 percent of sea species.

“Estimates of the CO2 in the atmosphere then were between six and 10 times greater than they are today,” Frasier states. The largest continuous volcanic eruption on Earth – known as the “Siberian Traps” – had been pumping out CO2 for about a million years prior to the Permian-Triassic mass extinction.

Her hypothesis is that high CO2 levels at the close of the Permian Period caused global warming, greatly increasing global temperatures. With no cold water at the poles, ocean circulation slowed, and the oceans were unable to mix with the little oxygen left in the air.

She cites a variety of evidence of high CO2 and low ocean oxygen levels in this fossil record. One piece of evidence is darkened rock from underwater fossil strata of the time. Darkening in ocean rock of this nature indicates a low amount of oxygen at the time of formation.

Frasier also collected evidence to support her theory in the form of bivalve fossils. The only survivors of the extinction were bivalve mollusks and gastropods -- snails. Only shallow water, tiny, small-shelled varieties with high metabolisms and a flat shape, which allowed them to spread out while feeding to extract more oxygen, survived. Deeper water varieties, where there was less oxygen, and larger shelled varieties, which needed more oxygen, became extinct, disappearing from the fossil record.

A final piece of evidence cited is the disappearance of the coral reefs. Coral reefs die if their environment lacks sufficient oxygen.

MORE Articles here:

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt...v7-sbc&ei=UTF-8

Watch this:

Thanks for watching and reading...

Re: Global Warming - A thread for all those who know better than scientists

An interesting article, but some REALLY interesting points I think the OP overlooked.

Quote:

The Permian-Triassic extinction event wiped out nearly 70 percent of species on land and 95 percent of sea species.

So many species died off, yet life itself kept going. After all, we're distantly related to the survivors.

Quote:

“Estimates of the CO2 in the atmosphere then were between six and 10 times greater than they are today,” Frasier states. The largest continuous volcanic eruption on Earth – known as the “Siberian Traps” – had been pumping out CO2 for about a million years prior to the Permian-Triassic mass extinction.

I guess those amphibians were driving too many cars lol... But seriously, it took continuous volcanic eruptions and CO2 levels approaching AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE HIGHER than what we've ever been able to contribute to accomplish. And on top of it all the Earth actually managed to balance itself out afterward which allowed the rise of dinosaurs and such.

It's one thing to say there's no global warming. It's quite another to say that global warming is due to man and that man has any significant impact. What "evidence" there is that's being used by Al Gore and others that paints man as the villain in fact is explainable by other natural phenomena. To say that man can destroy the planet is a prime case of hyperbole.

Re: Global Warming - A thread for all those who know better than scientists

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krasch

An interesting article, but some REALLY interesting points I think the OP overlooked.

So many species died off, yet life itself kept going. After all, we're distantly related to the survivors.

I guess those amphibians were driving too many cars lol... But seriously, it took continuous volcanic eruptions and CO2 levels approaching AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE HIGHER than what we've ever been able to contribute to accomplish. And on top of it all the Earth actually managed to balance itself out afterward which allowed the rise of dinosaurs and such.

It's one thing to say there's no global warming. It's quite another to say that global warming is due to man and that man has any significant impact. What "evidence" there is that's being used by Al Gore and others that paints man as the villain in fact is explainable by other natural phenomena. To say that man can destroy the planet is a prime case of hyperbole.

Humans have the power to destroy anything they touch.

Re: Global Warming - A thread for all those who know better than scientists

Quote:

Originally Posted by CD

Humans have the power to destroy anything they touch.

An unsurprising point, but it might actually be true when man can create artificial tornadoes, hurricanes, and volcanoes that can do the same damage as the real thing. Until then, that statement is merely hubris.

The Earth is capable of create damage on scales we just can't equal, unless you count nuclear weapons and no sane person has any interest in using those and ending the world...

Re: Global Warming - A thread for all those who know better than scientists

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krasch

Mountian top removal, worse than natures disasters:

The present revival of nuclear weapons, someone does want to use them:

Quote:

A new era of nuclear weapons
Bush's buildup begins with little debate in Congress

Congress, with only a limited debate, has given the Bush administration a green light for the biggest revitalization of the country's nuclear weapons program since the end of the Cold War, leaving many Democrats and even some hawkish Republicans seething.

"This has been a good year," said Linton Brooks, the administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration, which develops and manages the country's nuclear weapons arsenal. "I'm pretty happy we essentially got what we wanted."

Reversing a decade of restraint in nuclear weapons policy, Congress agreed to provide more than $6 billion for research, expansion and upgrades in the country's nuclear capabilities. While Congress approved large sums to maintain the existing nuclear arsenal even during the Clinton years, this year's increases will finance multiyear programs to design a new generation of warheads as well as more sophisticated missiles, bombers and re-entry vehicles to deliver them.

Quote:

Bush administration wasting billions on nuclear weapons stockpile, NRDC finds
April 13, 2004: Despite the end of the Cold War, the Bush administration is spending 12 times more on nuclear weapons research and production than on nonproliferation efforts to retrieve, secure and dispose of nuclear weapons materials worldwide, according to an NRDC analysis of Department of Energy programs. Much of the spending on weapons research and production, which amounted to $6.5 billion in fiscal year 2004, is funding costly projects that are "irrelevant to the defense and security challenges" that confront the nation, the report found.

The report, "Weaponeers of Waste," focuses on a half-dozen DOE nuclear weapons projects at the nation's nuclear weapons laboratories, revealing they are billions of dollars over budget and years behind in meeting their goals. The projects are part of the "stockpile stewardship" program, whose purpose was to guarantee a safe and reliable nuclear weapons stockpile in absence of full-scale underground testing.

At $6.5 billion, the current level of annual U.S. spending on nuclear weapons greatly exceeds the $4.2 billion (in 2004 dollars) the nation spent, on average, every year throughout the Cold War, which stretched from 1948 to 1991. Over the next five years the Bush administration plans to spend $36.6 billion to modernize the nuclear weapons stockpile and laboratory production complex, including $485 million to develop, test and begin production of the controversial robust nuclear earth penetrating warhead.

"The Energy Department is asking Congress for $6.8 billion for nuclear weapons projects for next year's budget -- double what we spent a decade ago," said Christopher Paine, a senior policy analyst at NRDC's nuclear program and author of the report. "Spending billions to extend the life of thousands of Cold War nuclear warheads is a colossal waste of taxpayer dollars. The government could keep a small fraction of those weapons in the stockpile and spend the rest of the money to make the world safer by eliminating nuclear threats."

So lets keep them in this argument, and maybe you should research statement:

Re: Global Warming - A thread for all those who know better than scientists

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krasch

It nearly 100000 years for forests to make any comeback....

The co2 levels raised the ocean temps enough to tip the ballance that holds methane hydrates stable... Once these stockpiles become volital, 400X the amount of methane in the atmosphere will be released.... Causing birds in flight to sufficate....

While temperatures rise, forests will dry out and huge fires (like in california) release MORE co2.....

Food crops will not preform, and there will be no ice on mountian tops, which is like a drip emmitter for natural irrigation for MANY LARGE regions to stay green in the dry summer.... Starvation!!!!!!!!!

People will violently migrate to the only suitable places left for man....

One thing you should ask yourself is, what are the moral ramifications, to put the earth into a situation that will take 20% of its life to recover... If it does....

The permian extintion is going to be different, because it took millions of years to play out naturally and did not have the added punch of fossil fuels... AND it was the very mechanism that the earth used to sequester the hydrocarbons that became our crude oil..............

Re: Global Warming - A thread for all those who know better than scientists

Quote:

Spending billions to extend the life of thousands of Cold War nuclear warheads is a colossal waste of taxpayer dollars. The government could keep a small fraction of those weapons in the stockpile and spend the rest of the money to make the world safer by eliminating nuclear threats.

If they are to be retained as a deterrant, those weapons need to be maintained. Before advancements made possible by that increase in spending, the military wasn't even sure that some of those warheads were still in working order. Spending money on nuclear technology doesn't necessarily mean more warheads are being procurred--there's been a lot of spending on computer technology capable of simulating the physics, for example. That's why fullscale underground testing was abandoned.

Wherever that article text came from, isn't it revealing of bias how it focuses on spending rather than discussing exactly how the arsenal is being expanded? For all the article tells us, costs rose as research teams were expanded and more salaries were paid and the raw destructive power of the arsenal may have been reduced as smaller, more effective modernized weapons replaced those broken and dangerous with age.

unless you count nuclear weapons and no sane person has any interest in using those and ending the world

People'll get desperate with adverse climate change, though. And insane dictators happen.

As for the Earth--it'll recover just fine from all the damage we're doing. Even if we detonate every nuclear weapon we have. Evolution and time will handle it. Even if our extinction is required.

Re: Global Warming - A thread for all those who know better than scientists

man-made global warming is political scare tactic. complete rubbish.

every story described here is worse case scenerio based on false science or poorly understood natural phenomenon. i've never seen so many smart people jump on the 'crises' band wagon.

as soon as people wise up to the fact that they've been scammed by global warming, the polititions will bring up another scare-city story to rake in tax money like....terrorism. wait, they did that. maybe...invasion by hostile aliens.

i'm warning you. when it happens, remember you heard it here first.

Re: Global Warming - A thread for all those who know better than scientists

Quote:

Originally Posted by ddoubleez

Mountian top removal, worse than natures disasters:

The present revival of nuclear weapons, someone does want to use them:

So lets keep them in this argument, and maybe you should research statement:

Mountain top removal that has taken YEARS if not DECADES to accomplish worse than nature? How about Mt. St. Helens. or Krackatoa. Most or all of both those mountains were gone in minutes, not just the top, and we had nothing to do with the cause of either. You're guilty of hyperbole yet again.

And just because the government wants more nuclear weapons stockpiled doesn't have to mean they intend to use them. They're simply out to maintain a status quo of mutually assured destruction, which is the main thing stopping rogue states that have nukes from actually considering using them against others. Your argument here is flawed. It's the same as saying that if I buy a handgun then I must be planning to use it to shoot my neighbor, not for target shooting or just plain collecting...

Re: Global Warming - A thread for all those who know better than scientists

Quote:

Originally Posted by gen. cutter

True enough, seems like everytime you click on the news, there's yet another crisis in the air.

Re: Global Warming - A thread for all those who know better than scientists

those experts always make the ppl believe we don't know much about this planet where we ourselves kive on because we are not experts,they do that cause they don't neither,the differenc is we don't pretend we do.

and that's unversal.

Re: Global Warming - A thread for all those who know better than scientists

Quote:

Originally Posted by LEGEND-K

So so true...

Re: Global Warming - A thread for all those who know better than scientists

Quote:

Originally Posted by prompt

I would like to tell you you have a good point, but maintainance and DEVELOPEMENT are two very different things...

Quote:

A new era of nuclear weapons
Bush's buildup begins with little debate in Congress
James Sterngold, Chronicle Staff Writer

Sunday, December 7, 2003

Quote:

Bush Pushes Nuclear Weapons Development in US
By Sarah Olson
t r u t h o u t | Report

Friday 01 September 2006

In the face of increased Congressional opposition to US nuclear weapons development, the Bush administration appears to be making an end run around governmental checks and balances. The bizarrely named Divine Strake project is a 700-ton explosive experiment, first scheduled to detonate at the Nevada Test Site in June of this year. Thanks to furious grass-roots opposition to the proposal, Divine Strake has been twice delayed, and is currently projecting a detonation date of no sooner than early 2007.

But as the Department of Defense attempts to justify this explosion, many say the government is simply obfuscating and delaying: the blast, they say, is a simulated nuclear explosion designed to provide important test and calibration data for existing and possibly new nuclear weapons. It will happen at the Nevada Test Site after the elections, and it will kick up a 10,000-foot mushroom cloud potentially full of Cold War-era radioactive dust.

Further, as the UN Security Council deadline for Iran to halt its uranium enrichment program passes, and hostilities throughout the Middle East increase, many find the possible threat of US nuclear weapons development to be an unnecessary exacerbation of hostilities. The Bush administration, they say, is engaging belligerent nuclear swashbuckling, and as a result, it is putting US citizens in danger.

Quote:

Published on Sunday, November 30, 2003 by the Observer/UK
Bush Plans New Nuclear Weapons
'Bunker-buster' bombs set to end 10-year research ban

by Paul Harris in New York

The United States is embarking on a multimillion-dollar expansion of its nuclear arsenal, prompting fears it may lead the world into a new arms race.

The United States is spurring a new global arms race with our own development of a new generation of nuclear weapons.

US Rep Ellen Tauscher
The Bush administration is pushing ahead with the development of a new generation of weapons, dubbed 'mini-nukes', that use nuclear warheads to penetrate underground bunkers.

Last week, it gave a quiet yet final go-ahead to a controversial research project into the bunker-buster. The move effectively ends a 10-year ban on research into 'low-yield' nuclear weapons.

Quote:

April 2003
Press Contacts: Daryl Kimball, Executive Director (202) 463-8270 x107 and Christine Kucia, Research Analyst, (202) 463-8270 x103
(Go to Nuclear Bunker Busters: Technical Realities)

Since taking office, the Bush administration has increasingly emphasized and relied upon counterproliferation strategies to deal with threats from weapons of mass destruction (WMD). These threats, according to Washington, increasingly come from certain states seeking nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons capabilities or from terrorists able to procure these arms.

A central goal of the administration has been to provide the president with a broader continuum of military options and capabilities, including new kinds of conventional and nuclear options, to “dissuade, deter, and defeat” adversaries armed with or seeking WMD.