Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » First snowfall
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: First snowfall [message #72274 is a reply to message #72265] |
Tue, 12 September 2006 11:53   |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
There's a difference between local weekly weather forecasts and overall
climate trends.
Global warming is happening now. We know this by looking at historical data.
The National Academy of Sciences, EPA and other science based sources
can fill you in on what we know so far, and how we know what we know.
It's worth reading for yourself.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/index. html
http://www4.nationalacademies.org/onpi/webextra.nsf/44bf87db 309563a0852566f2006d63bb/a3b7c0abdff8ed6485256a8400589ded?Op enDocument
http://www.realclimate.org/
Best Regards,
-Jamie
http://www.JamieKrutz.com
PS. Of course you'll hear a different story from special interests with
a short term financial stake in denial. For more on that, check out:
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/
Mark McCurdy wrote:
> Ah yes, we can't even give you the forecast for this coming Friday but we
> can see into the future 10 years...
>
>
>
> ... and yes we must not forget the record hurricane season we are
> experiencing .. wow!
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:4506ea37@linux...
>> Neil wrote:
>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Shifts in overall weather patterns are consistent with global warming.
>>> And, let's not forget: no matter how cold it gets as a result,
>>> it's still global "warming".
>>>
>>> :D
>> Global warming is the measurable rise in overall average temperature we
>> are currently experiencing. Don't be confused by local anomolies which may
>> or may not be related to global warming.
>>
>> Here's an introduction from the EPA you may find useful:
>>
>> http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/index. html
>>
>> One quote: "A warming trend of about 1°F has been recorded since the late
>> 19th century. Warming has occurred in both the northern and southern
>> hemispheres, and over the oceans. Confirmation of 20th-century global
>> warming is further substantiated by melting glaciers, decreased snow cover
>> in the northern hemisphere and even warming below ground."
>>
>> Read more about global warming.
>>
>> National Academy of Sciences:
>>
>> http://www4.nationalacademies.org/onpi/webextra.nsf/44bf87db 309563a0852566f2006d63bb/a3b7c0abdff8ed6485256a8400589ded?Op enDocument
>>
>> Another science-based site:
>>
>> http://www.realclimate.org/
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: First snowfall [message #72312 is a reply to message #72282] |
Wed, 13 September 2006 06:26 |
Neil
Messages: 1645
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>
>The data goes back hundreds of thousands of years via ice core samples
>and other historical evidence.
Ahhh, so then you DO beleive in the fact that there is evidence
of various other warming & cooling cycles throughout history!
Not that I thnk we should continue to dump pollutants & CO2
into the atmosphere if we can avoid it, but I think its safe to
say that if we went back to the horse & buggy days & replaced
every car, bus & train in the US with the equivalent amount of
horses needed to provide adequate transportation for our
current population of 300,000,000 people, the methane those horses would
produce would probably cause more "greenhouse
effect" than all the motor vehicles currently on the roads here.
How many horses would you need? 150 Million for personal use,
maybe (about 1.5 per household on the average)? Plus horses for
public transportation (how many horses would it take to pull the
equivalent of a city bus's worth of people? A train's worth?
A 737's worth? Then since most forms of mass transportation
runs 24 hours, you'd need to triple or maybe quadruple that
number for that sector, because while a plane can work 24 hours
in a row for however many flights/hours until it needs it's
required maintenance checks, a horse sure can't.
Yep, the internal combustion engine needs to go - to be
replaced with about 400-to-500-million horses, each producing
about 20 pounds of manure per day. The total area of the US is
a little over 3,500,000 square miles, so this works out to about
140 horses per square mile... hmmm, wait a minute, that's too
many horses to be able to grow food for, considering that not
all of that area is pastureland; plus, we're looking at about
10 Billion pounds of manure produced per day... I wonder if 10
Billion pounds of manure would produce as much methane (which
is 20 times more potent than CO2 as far as "greenhouse gasses"
go) as the amount of pollutants that our motor vehicles do?
Then, since we can't grow enough food for all the horses, we'd
soon become slaves to HOPEC (Horse Oats Producing Eastern
Countries), and in no time, we'd be at war with Australia over
more land to grow oats on.
Damn, we Americans can't get ANYTHING right, can we?
:)
|
|
|
|
| Re: First snowfall [message #72324 is a reply to message #72290] |
Wed, 13 September 2006 09:43 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Good points, Dedric.
Pike's Peak is an amazing spot on earth.
Cheers,
-Jamie
http://www.JamieKrutz.com
Dedric Terry wrote:
> I haven't been an Al Gore fan necessarily, but I agree on the global warming
> theory and am glad he's promoting awareness. Now if we can just get Detroit
> and the oil companies to actually try to help...
>
> It probably isn't so much a theory any more as an observation - one I'm not
> sure I want to see through to it's logical conclusion.
>
> Snow on Pike's Peak the last two days. We were up there Sunday - a balmy 38
> degrees.
>
> Regards,
> Dedric
>
> On 9/12/06 9:30 AM, in article 4506d0c8$1@linux, "Jamie K"
> <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>
>> Chris Latham wrote:
>>> Don't tell Al Gore it has already snowed there.
>>>
>>> CL
>> Shifts in overall weather patterns are consistent with global warming.
>> Deej's Durango dusting may or may not have much to do with it, though.
>>
>> If Al Gore is not your cup of tea, try the National Academy of Sciences:
>>
>> http://www4.nationalacademies.org/onpi/webextra.nsf/44bf87db 309563a0852566f200
>> 6d63bb/a3b7c0abdff8ed6485256a8400589ded?OpenDocument
>>
>> Another science-based site:
>>
>> http://www.realclimate.org/
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: First snowfall [message #72327 is a reply to message #72312] |
Wed, 13 September 2006 11:07 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hey Neil,
Climate variation throughout history is well accepted. For example, ice
ages have come and gone, leaving clear evidence.
So if you've heard anyone discussing past climate changes as if it were
in dispute by the scientific community, that would be a good example of
jousting at a straw man. Straw man distractions are usually used when
arguments cannot be won on their merits. There's a lot of that straw man
stuff out there in the global warming discussion, some of it apparently
funded by industries with a short term (and short sighted) financial
stake in denial (such as is documented here: http://www.exxonsecrets.org).
Setting up the idea of horses as a sole solution to global warming and
then knocking that notion down would be another straw man argument. I
haven't heard anyone in the scientific community advocating a return to
horses and buggies. That's a funny rant, though. :^)
If you'd like to get a quick overview of what some scientists actually
are proposing as possible solutions, go to the library or newsstand and
read the current issue of Scientific American: "Energy's Future Beyond
Carbon."
The entire issue is dedicated to possible approaches to the current
global warming situation. It covers a variety of attainable options,
each with its own set of positives and negatives. They mention 15
"wedge" possibilities, of which seven would be necessary to offset the
carbon problem - if we start now. If we don't start now it looks like
the choices get progressively more difficult and the chance of success
diminishes.
http://www.sciam.com
As you would guess, a combination of approaches is our best bet. The
sooner we get going the more we might be able to keep global warming
from becoming significantly more severe.
BTW, Colorado is a center for climate research. Here are links to some
of the folks involved around here:
cires.colorado.edu
instaar.colorado.edu
lasp.colorado.edu/science/atmospheric
www.ucar.edu/research/climate
nicl.usgs.gov
www.noaa.gov/climate.html
nsidc.org
Cheers,
-Jamie
http://www.JamieKrutz.com
PS. For more info on global warming related science, keep these links handy:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/index. html
http://www4.nationalacademies.org/onpi/webextra.nsf/44bf87db 309563a0852566f2006d63bb/a3b7c0abdff8ed6485256a8400589ded?Op enDocument
http://www.realclimate.org/
Neil wrote:
> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>> The data goes back hundreds of thousands of years via ice core samples
>> and other historical evidence.
>
> Ahhh, so then you DO beleive in the fact that there is evidence
> of various other warming & cooling cycles throughout history!
>
> Not that I thnk we should continue to dump pollutants & CO2
> into the atmosphere if we can avoid it, but I think its safe to
> say that if we went back to the horse & buggy days & replaced
> every car, bus & train in the US with the equivalent amount of
> horses needed to provide adequate transportation for our
> current population of 300,000,000 people, the methane those horses would
> produce would probably cause more "greenhouse
> effect" than all the motor vehicles currently on the roads here.
>
> How many horses would you need? 150 Million for personal use,
> maybe (about 1.5 per household on the average)? Plus horses for
> public transportation (how many horses would it take to pull the
> equivalent of a city bus's worth of people? A train's worth?
> A 737's worth? Then since most forms of mass transportation
> runs 24 hours, you'd need to triple or maybe quadruple that
> number for that sector, because while a plane can work 24 hours
> in a row for however many flights/hours until it needs it's
> required maintenance checks, a horse sure can't.
>
> Yep, the internal combustion engine needs to go - to be
> replaced with about 400-to-500-million horses, each producing
> about 20 pounds of manure per day. The total area of the US is
> a little over 3,500,000 square miles, so this works out to about
> 140 horses per square mile... hmmm, wait a minute, that's too
> many horses to be able to grow food for, considering that not
> all of that area is pastureland; plus, we're looking at about
> 10 Billion pounds of manure produced per day... I wonder if 10
> Billion pounds of manure would produce as much methane (which
> is 20 times more potent than CO2 as far as "greenhouse gasses"
> go) as the amount of pollutants that our motor vehicles do?
>
> Then, since we can't grow enough food for all the horses, we'd
> soon become slaves to HOPEC (Horse Oats Producing Eastern
> Countries), and in no time, we'd be at war with Australia over
> more land to grow oats on.
>
> Damn, we Americans can't get ANYTHING right, can we?
>
> :)
|
|
|
|
| Re: First snowfall [message #72333 is a reply to message #72312] |
Wed, 13 September 2006 11:58 |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
......and if we weren't using fossil fuels for heat and power, there would be
no trees on this planet by now and this would have happened long ago because
trees convert CO2 to oxygen. the problem isn't fossuil fuels. The problem is
that there are wayyyyyy to many of "us".
"Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:4508070b$1@linux...
>
> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
> >
> >The data goes back hundreds of thousands of years via ice core samples
> >and other historical evidence.
>
> Ahhh, so then you DO beleive in the fact that there is evidence
> of various other warming & cooling cycles throughout history!
>
> Not that I thnk we should continue to dump pollutants & CO2
> into the atmosphere if we can avoid it, but I think its safe to
> say that if we went back to the horse & buggy days & replaced
> every car, bus & train in the US with the equivalent amount of
> horses needed to provide adequate transportation for our
> current population of 300,000,000 people, the methane those horses would
> produce would probably cause more "greenhouse
> effect" than all the motor vehicles currently on the roads here.
>
> How many horses would you need? 150 Million for personal use,
> maybe (about 1.5 per household on the average)? Plus horses for
> public transportation (how many horses would it take to pull the
> equivalent of a city bus's worth of people? A train's worth?
> A 737's worth? Then since most forms of mass transportation
> runs 24 hours, you'd need to triple or maybe quadruple that
> number for that sector, because while a plane can work 24 hours
> in a row for however many flights/hours until it needs it's
> required maintenance checks, a horse sure can't.
>
> Yep, the internal combustion engine needs to go - to be
> replaced with about 400-to-500-million horses, each producing
> about 20 pounds of manure per day. The total area of the US is
> a little over 3,500,000 square miles, so this works out to about
> 140 horses per square mile... hmmm, wait a minute, that's too
> many horses to be able to grow food for, considering that not
> all of that area is pastureland; plus, we're looking at about
> 10 Billion pounds of manure produced per day... I wonder if 10
> Billion pounds of manure would produce as much methane (which
> is 20 times more potent than CO2 as far as "greenhouse gasses"
> go) as the amount of pollutants that our motor vehicles do?
>
> Then, since we can't grow enough food for all the horses, we'd
> soon become slaves to HOPEC (Horse Oats Producing Eastern
> Countries), and in no time, we'd be at war with Australia over
> more land to grow oats on.
>
> Damn, we Americans can't get ANYTHING right, can we?
>
> :)
|
|
|
|
| Re: First snowfall [message #72338 is a reply to message #72333] |
Wed, 13 September 2006 13:06 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Using fossil fuels has given us a long list advantages and dependencies.
It's obvious we're not going to suddenly stop using fossil fuels.
But relatively recently we've also begun to realize they are a releaser
of stored carbon and thus a contributor to greenhouse gases. And we've
begun to realize that's not a good thing given the current atmospheric
chemistry.
The problem isn't any one greenhouse gas source but all of them
together. Any workable solution will involve a combination of actions to
reduce and mitigate potential carbon overloads.
You're absolutely right that widespread use of open flame tree burning
for energy wouldn't be a solution. There might be room for efficient
burning of some plant matter in recirculating, low emmission systems,
but not if it involves extensive deforestation. We need forests to
absorb carbon.
Our people population is what it is and ideas for solutions have to
start where we are. The Sept. Scientific American issue does a pretty
good job of laying out some of the more possible options. Worth reading.
Cheers,
-Jamie
http://www.JamieKrutz.com
DJ wrote:
> .....and if we weren't using fossil fuels for heat and power, there would be
> no trees on this planet by now and this would have happened long ago because
> trees convert CO2 to oxygen. the problem isn't fossuil fuels. The problem is
> that there are wayyyyyy to many of "us".
>
> "Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:4508070b$1@linux...
>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>> The data goes back hundreds of thousands of years via ice core samples
>>> and other historical evidence.
>> Ahhh, so then you DO beleive in the fact that there is evidence
>> of various other warming & cooling cycles throughout history!
>>
>> Not that I thnk we should continue to dump pollutants & CO2
>> into the atmosphere if we can avoid it, but I think its safe to
>> say that if we went back to the horse & buggy days & replaced
>> every car, bus & train in the US with the equivalent amount of
>> horses needed to provide adequate transportation for our
>> current population of 300,000,000 people, the methane those horses would
>> produce would probably cause more "greenhouse
>> effect" than all the motor vehicles currently on the roads here.
>>
>> How many horses would you need? 150 Million for personal use,
>> maybe (about 1.5 per household on the average)? Plus horses for
>> public transportation (how many horses would it take to pull the
>> equivalent of a city bus's worth of people? A train's worth?
>> A 737's worth? Then since most forms of mass transportation
>> runs 24 hours, you'd need to triple or maybe quadruple that
>> number for that sector, because while a plane can work 24 hours
>> in a row for however many flights/hours until it needs it's
>> required maintenance checks, a horse sure can't.
>>
>> Yep, the internal combustion engine needs to go - to be
>> replaced with about 400-to-500-million horses, each producing
>> about 20 pounds of manure per day. The total area of the US is
>> a little over 3,500,000 square miles, so this works out to about
>> 140 horses per square mile... hmmm, wait a minute, that's too
>> many horses to be able to grow food for, considering that not
>> all of that area is pastureland; plus, we're looking at about
>> 10 Billion pounds of manure produced per day... I wonder if 10
>> Billion pounds of manure would produce as much methane (which
>> is 20 times more potent than CO2 as far as "greenhouse gasses"
>> go) as the amount of pollutants that our motor vehicles do?
>>
>> Then, since we can't grow enough food for all the horses, we'd
>> soon become slaves to HOPEC (Horse Oats Producing Eastern
>> Countries), and in no time, we'd be at war with Australia over
>> more land to grow oats on.
>>
>> Damn, we Americans can't get ANYTHING right, can we?
>>
>> :)
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: First snowfall [message #72357 is a reply to message #72338] |
Wed, 13 September 2006 20:37 |
Chris Latham
Messages: 109
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Call me crazy, or call me faithful...
yes, we need to do our best to be good stewards of the earth we live on...
but, there is a God who set all that exists in motion. One of these days,
He will put an end to the old heaven and earth, and He will bring about a
new heaven and earth (Revelation 21:1). I hope to see this come about in my
lifetime.
In the meantime, I'll continue to recycle, and I've promised myself that
I'll never buy another gasoline burning automobile. But I doubt that the 4
goats I own are contributing to farting us out of existance.
Peace and love,
Chris Latham
BTW, I just set up a myspace account. Please visit,
http://www.myspace.com/studiogorilla
|
|
|
|
| Re: First snowfall [message #72362 is a reply to message #72357] |
Wed, 13 September 2006 22:23 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Nice looking goats, Chris!
It's encouraging to see theological interpretations that support shared
environmental responsibility.
I can see no scriptural basis that would justify mucking up the planet
on the off chance the world might end before the consequences kick in.
I was just reading about a church that upgraded to solar electric and a
geothermal heating/cooling system. Good stewards indeed.
Cheers,
-Jamie
http://www.JamieKrutz.com
Chris Latham wrote:
> Call me crazy, or call me faithful...
>
> yes, we need to do our best to be good stewards of the earth we live on...
>
> but, there is a God who set all that exists in motion. One of these days,
> He will put an end to the old heaven and earth, and He will bring about a
> new heaven and earth (Revelation 21:1). I hope to see this come about in my
> lifetime.
>
> In the meantime, I'll continue to recycle, and I've promised myself that
> I'll never buy another gasoline burning automobile. But I doubt that the 4
> goats I own are contributing to farting us out of existance.
>
> Peace and love,
> Chris Latham
>
> BTW, I just set up a myspace account. Please visit,
> http://www.myspace.com/studiogorilla
>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: First snowfall [message #72371 is a reply to message #72357] |
Thu, 14 September 2006 06:50 |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Cuuuutttteeee!!!! I can't let my wife see thos goats or she will have to
have some....of course, then the doggies and horses would have some extra
playmates. Knowing us, the goats would end up living in the house in the
winter because if they were outside, the poor things would be cold.
;o}
"Chris Latham" <latham_c@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:4508bed4@linux...
> Call me crazy, or call me faithful...
>
> yes, we need to do our best to be good stewards of the earth we live on...
>
> but, there is a God who set all that exists in motion. One of these days,
> He will put an end to the old heaven and earth, and He will bring about a
> new heaven and earth (Revelation 21:1). I hope to see this come about in
my
> lifetime.
>
> In the meantime, I'll continue to recycle, and I've promised myself that
> I'll never buy another gasoline burning automobile. But I doubt that the
4
> goats I own are contributing to farting us out of existance.
>
> Peace and love,
> Chris Latham
>
> BTW, I just set up a myspace account. Please visit,
> http://www.myspace.com/studiogorilla
>
>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu Dec 26 16:37:34 PST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01925 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
