Climate CO2 warnings sure sounds like a scam to
-
The CO2 concern is for real.
It is how they plan to control that seems stupid.
-
The only genuine CO2 concern is the depletion of greenery on our earth.
The MILLIONS of acres razed in the Amazon, etc, rainforests for $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
The pavement growing, building growing over top of what used to be forests.
Like health care. It does have problems, but no mention at all of TORT REFORM.
WHY?
WHY ignore the destruction of plant and tree life on this planet when bringing up
CO2 levels? CO2 IS FREAKIN PLANT AND TREE FOOD.
WHY ignore tort reform when tort reform is a MAJOR HUGE CONTRIBUTOR TO THE COST OF HEALTH CARE AND INSURANCE?
Answer? "Their" goal is getting/extracting $$$$$$$$$, not actually fixing problems.
Like, poverty existing over eight years of the Clinton admin, 4 years of the Carter admin, etc etc,
but never a fix of poverty. But the Dems say Republicans fail to resolve the poverty issue.
I'm annoyed with the nonsense diversions. Get some people in Congress that fix problems, instead of capitalize because of them.
-
The important issue here is to realize that CO2 (not just CO2 but other gasses like nitrous oxide, sulpher based gasses ) in large amounts can and will hurt all of us in the long run.
how do we tackle these issues ? that is the million dollar question and the real answer is that there are no realistic solutions to that - not yet.
-
The only genuine CO2 concern is the depletion of greenery on our earth.
The MILLIONS of acres razed in the Amazon, etc, rainforests for $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
The pavement growing, building growing over top of what used to be forests.
Like health care. It does have problems, but no mention at all of TORT REFORM.
WHY?
WHY ignore the destruction of plant and tree life on this planet when bringing up
CO2 levels? CO2 IS FREAKIN PLANT AND TREE FOOD.
WHY ignore tort reform when tort reform is a MAJOR HUGE CONTRIBUTOR TO THE COST OF HEALTH CARE AND INSURANCE?
Answer? "Their" goal is getting/extracting $$$$$$$$$, not actually fixing problems.
Like, poverty existing over eight years of the Clinton admin, 4 years of the Carter admin, etc etc,
but never a fix of poverty. But the Dems say Republicans fail to resolve the poverty issue.
I'm annoyed with the nonsense diversions. Get some people in Congress that fix problems, instead of capitalize because of them.
-
HiWayGal, I haven't thought about that.
Bigger highways = less traffic jams...
well, that's interesting. I agree, even !
I was reading about mercury being found in most fish...
seems mercury fell into our water supply via industrial caused acid rain.
I wish the mercury problem got as much play as CO2.
-
The important issue here is to realize that CO2 (not just CO2 but other gasses like nitrous oxide, sulpher based gasses ) in large amounts can and will hurt all of us in the long run.
how do we tackle these issues ? that is the million dollar question and the real answer is that there are no realistic solutions to that - not yet.
how do we tackle these issues ? that is the million dollar question and the real answer is that there are no realistic solutions to that - not yet.
I think cities and states need to take the initiative on their own and make it a point to plant more trees, instead of waiting on Federal reform. But then again they would rather use the money for bridges to nowhere and flights to Argentina to cheat on their wives.
-
HiWayGal, I haven't thought about that.
Bigger highways = less traffic jams...
well, that's interesting. I agree, even !
I was reading about mercury being found in most fish...
seems mercury fell into our water supply via industrial caused acid rain.
I wish the mercury problem got as much play as CO2.
I was reading about mercury being found in most fish...
seems mercury fell into our water supply via industrial caused acid rain.
I wish the mercury problem got as much play as CO2.
Mercury being found in fish is not as common as the CO2 problem. There are rules that ensure that industry tht produce harmful chemicals handle them in the appropriate way and companies that do not respect those laws, if convicted, can be in trouble. CO2 is produced by almost all companies and in large quantities. It is hard for anyone to stop that without a proper plan. Also, CO2 entrapment over long durations has lead to loss of glacier ice and moderate increase in sea levels. if left unchecked this could submerge some low lying lands that include countries like Singapore, Malaysia etc
-
I know what you're saying, but mercury is a dangerous poison to us.
CO2 is what we exhale.
The destruction of millions and millions of acres of rainforest, and other forests around
the world over many years is a devasting impediment to the earth's ability to
re-process CO2.
There is no natural reprocessing of mercury, that's where I draw a distinction
in the importance of publicizing the need for immediate public concern to work
for a solution in cleanup.
-
I know what you're saying, but mercury is a dangerous poison to us.
CO2 is what we exhale.
The destruction of millions and millions of acres of rainforest, and other forests around
the world over many years is a devasting impediment to the earth's ability to
re-process CO2.
There is no natural reprocessing of mercury, that's where I draw a distinction
in the importance of publicizing the need for immediate public concern to work
for a solution in cleanup.
I know what you're saying, but mercury is a dangerous poison to us.
CO2 is what we exhale.
The destruction of millions and millions of acres of rainforest, and other forests around
the world over many years is a devasting impediment to the earth's ability to
re-process CO2.
There is no natural reprocessing of mercury, that's where I draw a distinction
in the importance of publicizing the need for immediate public concern to work
for a solution in cleanup.
If the amount of mercury poisoning is rampant then true, but from what i have heard it is not that bad or i simply have not read enough about it to consider it a high priority one.
-
<H1 class=print-title>Scientists Find Mercury in Every Freshwater Fish Tested</H1><H2 class=deck>USGS scientists find unsafe levels of mercury in more than a quarter of freshwater fish.</H2>By Leah Zerbe
Check local fish advisories to make sure you're not eating unsafe levels of mercury in fish.
RODALE NEWS, EMMAUS, PA—It's no secret that much of our fish is laden with mercury, a neurotoxic heavy metal that is especially dangerous to children and developing fetuses. But a new report reveals it's not just the oceangoing tuna and swordfish that often harbor dangerous levels, but also freshwater species sought out by recreational fisherman. Every freshwater fish tested in a recently released United States Geological Survey (USGS) report contained some level of mercury, but more than a quarter of the tested fish were contaminated with mercury levels classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as unsafe to eat.
THE DETAILS: Researchers involved in the investigative report, titled "Mercury in Fish, Bed Sediment, and Water from Streams Across the United States, 1998–2005," focused their attention on testing predatory freshwater fish, including largemouth and smallmouth bass, along with brook, rainbow, and brown trout—in other words, game species fisherman are often after. The researchers sampled mercury contamination in these fish from different streams across the country, in urban, agricultural, and undeveloped areas, along with streams in areas that were historically mined for mercury or gold. Mercury contamination was so high in 27 percent of tested fish that it exceeded the EPA's safe level for human consumption. While fish with unsafe levels were found all over the country, the highest concentrations were found in fish taken from blackwater coastal-plain streams flowing from forests or wetlands in the eastern and southeastern U.S., along with streams draining gold- or mercury-mined basins in the western states. Although wetland areas are invaluable because they filter out many viruses, oils, and other pollution, bacteria in the ecosystem actually break mercury contaminants into its most toxic form.
WHAT IT MEANS: While it's easy to see (and smell) something inherently wrong with raw sewage spewing from a pipe directly into a stream or river, mercury contamination is a little less obvious, but equally dangerous. Coal-fired power plants—producers of more than 45 percent of our nation's electricity—by far create the most mercury pollution. Mercury can be transported long distances in the atmosphere, and can affect streams, lakes, and other bodies of water far from where it originally floated out of a smokestack. Once it reaches the water, it starts building up in organisms, some of which we eventually eat. "Mercury concentrations increase each step in the food chain, from algae and critters to top predatory fish," says Brigham.
Here's how to avoid mercury in freshwater fish while reducing the amount of mercury pumped into the air.
• Do your research. With guidelines already in place about which seafood is safest to eat, this latest report on freshwater fish may seem discouraging. "We don't want people to have a knee-jerk reaction and not eat fish; there are a number of health benefits," says Brigham. "But there are contaminants that get in fish, and people who eat a lot with methylmercury concentrations should become familiar with state fish consumption advisories." If you like to fish, check the EPA's national fish advisories database for fish consumption information specific to lakes and certain stretches of streams, rivers, and creeks in your area. Use the pull-down tool in the "Name a Query" section to find water bodies listed by state. These advisories also include fish contaminated with unsafe levels of other dangerous materials, including PCBs, manmade chemicals used in the manufacturing and industrial sectors that were banned in 1976 but still persist in our environment today.
• Help cut down mercury emissions. Do a walk-through at home and determine which appliances are energy vampires and use our suggestions to slay them. You'll lower your power bill and help reduce the emissions of coal-fired power plants. Find ways to buy green energy.
-
I worked ten years in R&D for a company that created plastic colorants,
mostly as a technical software developer (the only one), learned a lot,
but still I don't know about mercury.
Cadmium-based pigments were all the msds rage back then, I believe
those were outlawed long ago, now...
But not a word about mercury, but great taxation and people control planned
by the left at every op. Just seems so self-serving, at the cost of letting
our environment go to hell otherwise. Hypocrisy seems to be the order of the day
on the whole CO2-environment concern.
-
John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, on Global warming and Carbon:
Well, it is simply not happening. Worldwide there was a significant natural warming trend in the 1980’s and 1990’s as a Solar cycle peaked with lots of sunspots and solar flares. That ended in 1998 and now the Sun has gone quiet with fewer and fewer Sun spots, and the global temperatures have gone into decline. Earth has cooled for almost ten straight years. So, I ask Al Gore, where’s the global warming?
The cooling trend is so strong that recently the head of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had to acknowledge it. He speculated that nature has temporarily overwhelmed mankind’s warming and it may be ten years or so before the warming returns. Oh, really. We are supposed to be in a panic about man-made global warming and the whole thing takes a ten year break because of the lack of Sun spots. If this weren’t so serious, it would be laughable.
Here is the deal about CO2, carbon dioxide. It is a natural component of our atmosphere. It has been there since time began. It is absorbed and emitted by the oceans. It is used by every living plant to trigger photosynthesis. Nothing would be green without it. And we humans; we create it. Every time we breathe out, we emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It is not a pollutant. It is not smog. It is a naturally occurring invisible gas.
The only way to stop us from emitting carbon dioxide is to kill all 6.5Billion people on the planet. Someone riding their bike to work every day vs driving isn't going to impact the miniscule amount of the CO2 that humans contribute.
-
Ridiculous assertion.
If the earth was cooling then there would be an increase in the volume of glaciers, which is not the case. And driving is just one of the contributions .. factories and power plants are the major pollutant suppliers. So there is a whole set of things that needs to change. And the way one prevents global warming is not by preventing all forms of CO2 emissions but rather by limiting the CO2 production alone but also by increasing the flora content to process the CO2 in the atmosphere. So It is not about preventing CO2 but rather controlling CO2.
-
The glaciers took how many centuries to be created?
The current global cooling has only been occuring since 1996.
But the earth has been cooling.
for more information:
http://www.odu.edu/ao/instadv/quest/Greenhouse.html
and, William Kininmonth, an expert, says this:
William Kininmonth is a meteorologist and an outspoken critic of global warming
and the Kyoto Protocol. He was head of the National Climate Centre at the
Bureau of Meteorology from 1986 to 1998.
"Info Note No. 44 issued by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO)
underscores why the public should take no notice of climate predictions
for months, years or centuries ahead.
In the Note, the Secretary General of WMO discussed the potential for
the current La Niña to extend into a second year and then concluded,
with remarkable candidness, that 'The likelihood of the current La Niña
continuing for such a period will remain unclear for some months'.
Clearly the climate scientists, with all their elaborate computer models,
cannot predict even a few months in advance.
It should be recalled that in January 2007 the UK Meteorological Office,
with much fanfare, predicted that the then current El Niño event would
continue through 2007 and that 2007 would be the warmest year on record.
The prediction was spectacularly wrong. The El Niño was soon replaced
by a La Niña event and the global temperature fell 0.6°C in the 12 months
to January 2008, effectively wiping off a century of ‘global warming’.
1998 remains the warmest year of the climate record and the headline
beginning 'Global warming continues...' is clearly misleading.
No amount of spin can disguise the fact that there are many unknowns
and uncertainties about the climate system. There is no compelling
evidence that carbon dioxide has any significant control over the
direction of global temperature and climate. The processes that regulate
the interannual to decadal fluctuations of climate are poorly understood
and, as yet, unpredictable."
-
Whether you believe global warming is a 'man made phenomenon' or is being made worse by man or is just a natural climate cycle, I think the bottom line is that we alone are responsible for the care of our planet.
Any opportunity we have to make our environment better is never wasted.
There are costs and sacrifices required to do that and we have to keep trying.
I believe global climate change is simply a natural cycle that we have not yet begun to fully understand. Mother Earth has amazing abilities to heal herself if given the opportunity. We certainly aren't helping that happen, but I don't believe we are making a hugely significant impact.
-
Sun-Caused Global Warming
September 8, 2009
Investor's Business Daily
Climate Change: A team of international scientists has finally figured out why sunspots have a dramatic effect on the weather. It shows the folly of fearing the SUV while dismissing that thermonuclear furnace in the sky.
Mankind once worshiped the sun. Now the world studiously ignores it as nations prepare to hammer out a successor to the failed Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012, in Copenhagen in December. Something is indeed rotten in Denmark.
Our own government is committed to fighting climate change whether it be though Son of Kyoto or our own growth-capping, job-killing cap-and-trade legislation known as Waxman-Markey.
Despite the sun being the major source of all energy on earth, supporters of man-caused global warming have dismissed the sun's role in climate change. They say the historic 11-year solar cycle changes the amount of energy reaching the earth by about only 0.1% not enough to account for temperature rises this century.
The Aug. 28 issue of the journal Science details how the scientific team led by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), using a century's worth of data and three powerful computer models, figured out just how small changes in solar activity can trigger great changes in earth's climate.
The study found that chemicals in the stratosphere and sea surface temperatures during solar maximums act in a way that amplifies the sun's influence. The slight increase in solar energy in the peak production of sunspots is absorbed by stratospheric ozone, warming the air in the tropics where sunlight is most intense.
The additional energy also helps produce more ozone that absorbs even more solar energy. The increased sunlight causes a slight warming of ocean surface waters across the subtropical Pacific.
This stratospheric energy absorption and sea surface warming can intensify winds and rainfall, and ultimately influence global weather in ways that amplify the sun's influence.
"The sun, the stratosphere and the oceans are connected in ways that can influence such events as winter rainfall in North America," says study author Gerald Meehl. "Understanding the role of the solar cycle can provide added insight as scientists work toward predicting regional weather patterns for the next couple of decades."
The world has significantly cooled in the last decade, a period that corresponds to a decline and virtual halt in sunspot activity. Solar activity is in a valley right now, the deepest of the past century. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reports that in 2008 and 2009 the sun set Space Age records for low sunspot counts, weak solar wind and low solar radiance.
R. Timothy Patterson, professor of geology and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center of Canada's Carleton University, has said that "CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long-, medium- and even short-time scales."
Rather, he says, "I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of energy on this planet."
A Hoover Institution Study a few years back examined historical data and came to a similar conclusion. "The effects of solar activity and volcanoes are impossible to miss. Temperatures fluctuated exactly as expected, and the pattern was so clear that, statistically, the odds of the correlation existing by chance were less than one in 100," according to Hoover fellow Bruce Berkowitz.
Current solar inactivity is similar to what scientists call the Maunder Minimum, a period of solar inactivity from 1645 to 1715 that spawned what is known as the Little Ice Age. At Christmas, Londoners could ice skate on the frozen Thames and New Yorkers could walk over the Hudson from Manhattan to Staten Island.
The NCAR study shows how complicated atmospheric and climate science really is and how many variables must be factored in to have even a basic understanding of all the components that make up and influence earth's climate before the world commits economic suicide.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/A....aspx?id=505573
Maybe Obama and thr Libs can place an Energy Tax on the Sun to!!!
-
Been there, already, T.
Heck, mz the pussy, Dan and Shep, if I recall correctly, believe that the sun
is a right wing conspiracy created by Pres Bush.
-
Sure, luck means a lot in football. Not having a good quarterback is bad luck. -Don Shula
-
The glaciers took how many centuries to be created?
The current global cooling has only been occuring since 1996.
But the earth has been cooling.
for more information:
http://www.odu.edu/ao/instadv/quest/Greenhouse.html
and, William Kininmonth, an expert, says this:
William Kininmonth is a meteorologist and an outspoken critic of global warming
and the Kyoto Protocol. He was head of the National Climate Centre at the
Bureau of Meteorology from 1986 to 1998.
"Info Note No. 44 issued by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO)
underscores why the public should take no notice of climate predictions
for months, years or centuries ahead.
In the Note, the Secretary General of WMO discussed the potential for
the current La Niña to extend into a second year and then concluded,
with remarkable candidness, that 'The likelihood of the current La Niña
continuing for such a period will remain unclear for some months'.
Clearly the climate scientists, with all their elaborate computer models,
cannot predict even a few months in advance.
It should be recalled that in January 2007 the UK Meteorological Office,
with much fanfare, predicted that the then current El Niño event would
continue through 2007 and that 2007 would be the warmest year on record.
The prediction was spectacularly wrong. The El Niño was soon replaced
by a La Niña event and the global temperature fell 0.6°C in the 12 months
to January 2008, effectively wiping off a century of ‘global warming’.
1998 remains the warmest year of the climate record and the headline
beginning 'Global warming continues...' is clearly misleading.
No amount of spin can disguise the fact that there are many unknowns
and uncertainties about the climate system. There is no compelling
evidence that carbon dioxide has any significant control over the
direction of global temperature and climate. The processes that regulate
the interannual to decadal fluctuations of climate are poorly understood
and, as yet, unpredictable."
The glaciers took how many centuries to be created?
The current global cooling has only been occurring since 1996.
But the earth has been cooling.
Glaciers melt only if the temperatures heat up. If it was cooling as one says then we will have atleast seen the melting stop - which is not happening.
The suns effect directly on global warming is minimal. GreenHouse gasses are a major factor in global warming.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/...90511122425.htm
And here is another link that says that the melting of Ice in Artic is man made:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...0,3388515.story
And there is another scientist who thinks that this cooling phase we see is a result of Earths natural cycle taking stronger effect over the man made warming. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/art...t-predicts.html
-------------------------
We can take links all day long and try to attack-counter attack each day. While scientific minds are trying to understand the pattern behind the earths climatic changes, It can be confirmed that they still do not have the understanding of how it actually occurs and what the exact pattern is. But we can only conclude for now that emitting these green house gasses does make a difference to the way the earth reacts- how and by how much we do not know yet.
-
Mother nature is going to shake us off like water droplets on a dog....there will be a giant microbe/virus that will balance out this OVERpopulated planet....I don't even think it's a question of if...just when. We are due for a large scale De-population....it has occurred throughout time and will continue
.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login