Global warming?

Topic: Global warming? (Read 5921 times) previous topic - next topic

Global warming?

Reply #60 – February 10, 2007, 05:43:15 PM

Holy we hit 20 today, global warming, heat wave, I am a HUGE conspiracy.

....fan.

Global warming?

Reply #61 – February 10, 2007, 05:52:36 PM

Quote from: nirvanagod;128747

I say we blame her for global warming.

And for the record... I just farted, that should help speed things up a bit :D .

yeah,, blame her,,

so what do all you buckeyes think about upstate NY's lake effect snow?
I wish i could get that much snow. We only got about 9 inches here.

Global warming?

Reply #62 – February 10, 2007, 06:46:52 PM

Quote from: jcassity;128752

so what do all you buckeyes think about upstate NY's lake effect snow?
I wish i could get that much snow. We only got about 9 inches here.

Eh, we got all the cold... they can have the snow.

Global warming?

Reply #63 – February 10, 2007, 10:01:33 PM

Quote from: jcassity;128752

yeah,, blame her,,

so what do all you buckeyes think about upstate NY's lake effect snow?
I wish i could get that much snow. We only got about 9 inches here.

those friggin central-staters!!! lol im seriously pissed though, they got dumped on cuz theyre near lake Ontario, over here in the GOOD OLD HUDSON VALLEY, we got nuttin! this winter has been embarassing. but of course as i said (if you spotted the sarcasm) here in the valley we get nowhere near as much as EVERYWHERE AROUND US. so f-in boring.

Global warming?

Reply #64 – February 13, 2007, 12:08:33 AM

The Earth has been going through these cycles forever. Heck if we are heating up the earth a little it might come in handy if the sun cools off a few degrees some day, might just save our asses. Any ways, you guys ever tried to heat a rock with a burning ball of gas 93,000,000 miles away supporting 6.5 billion people. It's bound to have a glitch here and there resulting in change now and then. You would have to be nuts to think for a second that with all of the variables that exist in the world/universe, with or without people, things are always going to remain exactly the same. It is important that pollution is minimized as much as possible though. Trashing mother earth is not in our best interest that's for sure. As far as "global warming", I just call it normal. So what does one do? Plant some trees once in a while, and build your house on high ground. Besides, long before global warming gets us, we'll get ourselves with nuclear war or one of them deadly viruses we keep locked up gets loose. Global warming probly doesn't even make the top ten list of things most likely to seriously compromise human survival. I like the statistical info some of you guys have posted. Jason.

Global warming?

Reply #65 – February 13, 2007, 11:13:19 AM

^^ i agree, nucular holocost will kill us all before global warming... but from what scientists say about the life of a star (the sun) the next step for our sun is it will swell up large enough to swallow up mercery and maybe venus, which would have enough gravity to suck every planet up till prolly neptune.

Global warming?

Reply #66 – February 13, 2007, 11:46:09 AM

It is irrational, irresponsible and highly negligent to think that humans are not affecting the earth and its climate. Nature evolved and survived for billions of years without us. Now things are radically and unexpectedly different with humans in the picture. The difference is, today we have the knowledge to measure what exactly is happening, where mankind never had that in years past. Knowledge = power = scary, sobering thoughts. Then again, it could all be part of a global cycle that we've never seen before.

In either case I'm all for warmer winters and summers. But not at the expense of the planet upon which I happen to be living. The majority of the pollution that is theoretically tied to global warming does NOT come from automobiles. This doesn't justify having a car that pollutes but it does show that we, as car fans, are not the black sheep we're sometimes made out to be. For every old car restored, probably 1,000 newer cars go to the salvage yard, and those 1,000 cars are going to pollute waaaayyyyy more than 1 car ever could. It's simple math...as time progresses, our emissions output gets smaller, and over a span of 20, 30, 50 years there will hardly be any majorly polluting vehicles left on the road, except for collectors and eccentrics. Essentially, auto pollution will cease to exist eventually. So that factor will one day be eliminated from the global warming 'hit list'.

And now, the new Chevy Silverado can get over 20mpg. From a TRUCK. The impossible, it seems, can be accomplished like never before. We have the technology, the means, and now the experience to solve problems that have plagued the auto industry for many years. The only sticking point is the price as it trickles down to the consumer. The buying public is being asked to bear some of the burden, financially, to help solve the problems (hence the higher prices for hybrids). Eventually this will even out as well.

The point is, progress isn't stopping. Things WILL get better, as far as auto emissions. It's not reverting by any means. You can't fix the past but you can help with the future. So enjoy your rear-drive V8 American gas guzzler that sucks on dinosaur guts. We'll be a very small minority in the future.

Yet things are definitely happening to the climate and some people, and a lot of scientists, are taking notice. I don't think that's such a bad thing. Are they correct, though? That's the debate. Assuming that they are, we could be in for a pretty rough century. But I've always believed that nature always finds a way to heal itself, to combat whatever is afflicting it. So...who knows. We'll all find out soon enough.

We have a much greater chance of getting extinguished by a meteor than death by car emissions. We should be concentrating more on looking out into space and trying to catch that errant rock before it hits us. But that's another issue.

Global warming?

Reply #67 – February 13, 2007, 04:27:56 PM

Quote

We should be concentrating more on looking out into space and trying to catch that errant rock before it hits us

just like in that movie when ben aflack dies and aerosmiths daughter cries

Global warming?

Reply #68 – February 13, 2007, 05:57:25 PM

Quote from: EricCoolCats;129269

The majority of the pollution that is theoretically tied to global warming does NOT come from automobiles. This doesn't justify having a car that pollutes but it does show that we, as car fans, are not the black sheep we're sometimes made out to be

you brought up a great point, which i have read about before. they say the power plants are the REAL BIG polluters. honestly, i could totally live without electricity in my home. ok maybe not LOL. more realistically, i could live on the amount of electricity a SMALL turbine in my backyard or solar panel coud generate(because anything big enough to actually power your house is $$$$$$$$$)

id still have my car, and thats all that matters. id just have to get out and pull open the garage door myself. :D and c'mon, everyone used to do that, before we had openers!

Global warming?

Reply #69 – February 13, 2007, 10:23:14 PM

The thing is, if global warming is happening, it ain't gonna happen overnight. You're not gonna be sitting on a dock, fishing rod in hand, and all of a sudden be up to your ears in water. A tidal wave isn't gonna flood Manhattan in an instant (or at least one caused by global warming won't - earthquakes are a different matter).

In other words, as the water rises, we'll just get the hell out of its way - or at least if we're smart we will. Instead, though, we'll be stupid and build levies and dams and end up with a bunch of New Orleans. As one part of the world becomes "unfarmable" we'll move the farms to a different part of the world, and the "unfarmable" ones will be used to farm crops more suitable to the new climate. Florida may become too warm and dry to grow oranges, so we'll grow 'em in New York. Meanwhile we'll grow sugar cane in Florida.

I think the biggest problem with global warming would be that mankind would be too stubborn (or stupid) to get out of its way. As mentioned above, instead of moving back from the rising ocean we'd try to restrain it. Instead of growing corn in Northwest Territories we'd irrigate the hell out of the prairies (or deserts as they'd likely end up) and continually bail out the dirt farmers. Instead of abandoning beachfronts pr0ne to storm damage we'd keep rebuilding our big, stupid beach houses. Just like we do now.

Global warming?

Reply #70 – February 13, 2007, 11:56:19 PM

But I love my big stupid beach house!

I don't have a big stupid beach house.

Global warming?

Reply #71 – February 14, 2007, 11:58:04 PM

Quote from: Thunder Chicken;129450

In other words, as the water rises, we'll just get the hell out of its way - or at least if we're smart we will. Instead, though, we'll be stupid and build levies and dams and end up with a bunch of New Orleans. As one part of the world becomes "unfarmable" we'll move the farms to a different part of the world, and the "unfarmable" ones will be used to farm crops more suitable to the new climate. Florida may become too warm and dry to grow oranges, so we'll grow 'em in New York. Meanwhile we'll grow sugar cane in Florida.

I think the biggest problem with global warming would be that mankind would be too stubborn (or stupid) to get out of its way. As mentioned above, instead of moving back from the rising ocean we'd try to restrain it. Instead of growing corn in Northwest Territories we'd irrigate the hell out of the prairies (or deserts as they'd likely end up) and continually bail out the dirt farmers. Instead of abandoning beachfronts pr0ne to storm damage we'd keep rebuilding our big, stupid beach houses. Just like we do now.

You hit on something there, humankinds adaptability. The question is how we choose to adapt. Do we do what other countries are doing in their major cities to places like NewYork and Miami or take another route? Do we take a step back from increased industrialization and see what effect that has or use that industrial might to make the globe fit our wishes and desires? Check out the second site.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/06/science/06tech.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5088&en=f2cbac85235230ad&ex=1283659200&adxnnl=0&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1125997239-x7iBtEFYvi7GgJq/LCqWwQ

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s109-517

Global warming?

Reply #72 – February 15, 2007, 12:35:10 AM

Quote from: kyle2ooo;129349

just like in that movie when ben aflack dies and aerosmiths daughter cries

Actually, Affleck lives...it's Bruce Willis who dies...bah...

The earth has been going through these cycles for countless millenia...but yet, i WILL subscribe to the theory that humankind has affected the cycle, too.

my only question: how to convince 150 trillion people to each cut down in some way to prove THAT theory...I don't think it would make much of a noticeable difference immediately.
So, I will continue to drive daily my gas-guzzling, V8 heavy-ass truck because: A. it's my only vehicle, and B. I pay for my gas, not you, or Donald Trump, or Bush...or anybody....

With that said...blah..who cares...we're NOT gonna be able to stop it, just slow it down slightly, even with a mass, collective effort.

Global warming?

Reply #73 – February 15, 2007, 02:56:13 PM

Quote from: FordTruckFreeek;129661

With that said...blah..who cares...we're NOT gonna be able to stop it, just slow it down slightly, even with a mass, collective effort.

That's not necessarily true because we can look at another atmospheric issue in the past that was resolved. That issue is lead content in the air. For those who have forgotten, lead was on a radical rise just prior to WWI when manufacturing started producing more cars and products for public consumption. Between the 50's and the 60's atmospheric lead content skyrocketed. In the late 60's with data from scientific observation this rise could be easily graphed. When government started legislating the reduction of the use of lead in gas, paint, and emission control from manufacturing in the 70's, these lead levels dropped. These reductions were followed as well.
Check out the graphs at the bottom of this link page.

http://see-the-sea.org/topics/pollution/air/AirPol-body.htm

Air polution is still a problem in all its forms. How we meet those problems is up to us as a whole, world wide.