What are your thoughts on global warming?

[MitchM]

I don't know how the Chinese mortgage system works, but if the mortgages are not paid off by the time the condos are rendered unlivable, the banks will be on the hook for the loss.

 

[mgmine]

China has shown that they still are making land contrary to what Mark Twain had to say. Another thing about sea life, a lot of it depends on algae and algae is growing and so are some of the fish populations. Plants also need co2 and if we take it away or even reduce it by a little there could be undesired results. It goes both ways when things have to adjust. Even worse is that if co2 isn't the problem, once it is reduced what do we do to increase it again. What if the opposition is correct and the earth isn't really warming that it is only doing what it always has and is going through a cycle. Could scientists warm the earth up on purpose? Can they make a hurricane stop or change the weather in any way? Can they even predict what the temperature will be in two months let alone a hundred years? . There are no studies going on that I have heard of to try and determine what will happen when our atmosphere is changed. A good example of meddling is the story of how the U.S government's polices caused the great dust bowl of the 1930's. We tinker with nature at our own risk

 

[Meyer Jordan]

A good example of meddling is the story of how the U.S government's polices caused the great dust bowl of the 1930's.

I would be interested in learning how the U.S. government caused drought (4 of them) in the 1930's?

 

[Meyer Jordan]

China has shown that they still are making land contrary to what Mark Twain had to say. Another thing about sea life, a lot of it depends on algae and algae is growing and so are some of the fish populations. Plants also need co2 and if we take it away or even reduce it by a little there could be undesired results. It goes both ways when things have to adjust. Even worse is that if co2 isn't the problem, once it is reduced what do we do to increase it again. What if the opposition is correct and the earth isn't really warming that it is only doing what it always has and is going through a cycle. Could scientists warm the earth up on purpose? Can they make a hurricane stop or change the weather in any way? Can they even predict what the temperature will be in two months let alone a hundred years? . There are no studies going on that I have heard of to try and determine what will happen when our atmosphere is changed. A good example of meddling is the story of how the U.S government's polices caused the great dust bowl of the 1930's. We tinker with nature at our own risk

Yes algae is growing because there is a more than enough CO2 in the warming ocean water. This is why ocean acidification is taking place and killing the coral. It is also why toxic Cyano-bacteria (Blue-green algae) is becoming more prevalent and causing health issues.
The only fish populations that are increasing are the smaller species like sardines and herring. This has occurred solely due to overfishing of the predator species. No direct connection to global warming/climate change.

 

[mgmine]

I would be interested in learning how the U.S. government caused drought (4 of them) in the 1930's?

They didn't cause the drought they (NOBODY CAN CHANGE NATURE) didn't recognize the climate for what it was at the time and that the climate does in fact change, that it is dependent on many things that can't be seen. They didn't think ahead and consider that maybe weather changes. They encouraged farming which threw the balance off and one thing led to another. By the time they (the experts in the government) figured out what was happening it was too late. Had the prairie not been so heavily farmed there wouldn't have been an erosion problem. Was it the governments policy or the farmers methods? Both are to blame. The point is that something as simple as planting crops can drastically change conditions. Change the atmosphere at your own risk because once changed it will not be as simple as changing farming techniques.

http://weather.about.com/od/weatherfaqs/f/dustbowl.htm

 

[mgmine]

Yes algae is growing because there is a more than enough CO2 in the warming ocean water. This is why ocean acidification is taking place and killing the coral. It is also why toxic Cyano-bacteria (Blue-green algae) is becoming more prevalent and causing health issues.
The only fish populations that are increasing are the smaller species like sardines and herring. This has occurred solely due to overfishing of the predator species. No direct connection to global warming/climate change.

Yes you are right but again everything does something in nature. Algae takes in CO2 and gives back Oxygen. Start tinkering with algae and you can start something that can't be stopped. My whole point is that until scientists are 100% sure that there is a problem a REAL problem like an asteroid headed for the earth that they shouldn't be fooling with the very make up of the earth. There is enough controversy surrounding the climate. When something can't be answered the response is always that climate change is causing it. If the numbers aren't showing that the earth is warming as predicted then just beat the numbers until the confess. The numbers will always confess for either the skeptics or the other side.

Benefits of Algal Blooms
Algal blooms provide large concentrations of algae that produce organic compounds needed by higher organisms, ranging from oysters, clams, and mussels to human beings. For this reason, productivity increases in areas where algal blooms occur. More algae in the water means that more carbon dioxide is used from the atmosphere and that more oxygen is released into the atmosphere. Oxygen is necessary for many living things, including humans. As noted previously, the production of dimethyl sulfide gas helps protect algae from harmful ultraviolet rays so they remain healthy and thus are able to continue the cycle of sustaining life on Earth.

Even in the coldest parts of the ocean, algae provide the primary source of organic material to animals at the bottom of the food chain. Organic materials are moved up the food chain as higher organisms feed on those lower down the chain. For example, algae have been found in Antarctic sea ice. As sea water freezes, algae living in the water are frozen in the ice, where they later can be released during a thaw. These algae are a vital source of food for krill, the shrimp-like organisms eaten by penguins, seals, seabirds, and whales.


Read more: http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/A-Bi/Algal-Blooms-in-the-Ocean.html#ixzz4RVFkmbCQ

 

[sissy]

Still no one addresses the government is the cause and space exploration has made more problems and cost more money than it is worth .We waste money on something that will not help our world.Then you add in the space junk we are causing .We are dumping even in space and polluting it

 

[sissy]

No Jimmy that is not a star it is space garbage

 

[Meyer Jordan]

My whole point is that until scientists are 100% sure that there is a problem a REAL problem like an asteroid headed for the earth that they shouldn't be fooling with the very make up of the earth.

Where is this happening? All that I am aware of is attempts to curb man's pollution of the atmosphere with greenhouse gases.

Of course algae is important. It is very important! But too much of anything is not good or in keeping with a balanced eco-system. The oceans operate under the sames rules of biology and chemistry as the ponds that belong to the members of this Forum. Upset any of these basic parameters (CO2 is one of them) and problems will soon arise.
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification?

 

[Meyer Jordan]

They didn't cause the drought they (NOBODY CAN CHANGE NATURE) didn't recognize the climate for what it was at the time and that the climate does in fact change, that it is dependent on many things that can't be seen.

Meteorology, as compared to today,was still in its infancy in the 1930's. Radiosondes were not introduced until 1930 and a network of radiosonde stations was not developed in the U.S. until 1938. Radar was unknown. Computerized data processing did not exist. Understanding of the forces that drive climate was very crude. In short, in the 1930's, science did not have the knowledge or ability to forecast the series of droughts that occurred in the 1930's

 

[Meyer Jordan]

Ironically, in 1938, Guy Stewart Callendar, an English engineer, was the first to propose a connection between CO2 emissions and global warming.

 

[mgmine]

Where is this happening? All that I am aware of is attempts to curb man's pollution of the atmosphere with greenhouse gases.

Of course algae is important. It is very important! But too much of anything is not good or in keeping with a balanced eco-system. The oceans operate under the sames rules of biology and chemistry as the ponds that belong to the members of this Forum. Upset any of these basic parameters (CO2 is one of them) and problems will soon arise.
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification?

According to what I read the facts seem to be that co2 has been increasing and that they think that they have to reduce the amount of co2 going into the atmosphere. Co2 is only one of the things that cause green house gasses so to try and change it sounds to me like tinkering with what has been happening for eons. Evolution takes thousands of years to adapt to change. Plants have adapted over millennia to ratio of co2 in the air. To change that in the next few decades doesn't sound like such a good idea to me.Especially if plants are on an evolutionary trend that requires more co2 and not less. I'm not saying that this is so I'm saying let's at least study the benefits of climate change and the benefits are great. If you say something often enough and loud enough that still doesn't make it true. If you cut off dissension, which is exactly what the schools and scientific community are doing, there will only be one view.

 

[mgmine]

Meteorology, as compared to today,was still in its infancy in the 1930's. Radiosondes were not introduced until 1930 and a network of radiosonde stations was not developed in the U.S. until 1938. Radar was unknown. Computerized data processing did not exist. Understanding of the forces that drive climate was very crude. In short, in the 1930's, science did not have the knowledge or ability to forecast the series of droughts that occurred in the 1930's

Very true but the greatest danger is thinking that you (not you personally) know everything and are willing to bet the earth on that knowledge let's not forget the coming of the ice age in the 70's. In a hundred years they will be saying the same about our level of understanding today...or will they? If you accept the fact that man is the cause of global warming why look any further? I see two things as happening, first nothing will have changed, We will still be setting record highs and record lows and we won't have the slightest idea on how to stop a tornado. Second the earth will have warmed and everything will have had a hundred years to adjust. Aging cities along the coasts will have been rebuilt to newer standards so that we use less energy. Sewers and water systems will be rebuilt, more crops will be grown on the same amount of land. The stronger species will survive and the weaker will not. Nature will self correct. Humans think in decades the earth thinks in billions of years. We would not be where we are today if we didn't mess the world up. We would be in the dark ages without the pollution and everything else that goes with it. We can change what we can touch on the ground but again nature will always win. We can unpollute the rivers and we can replant the trees and reclaim the damage left by mining. Man cannot change nature.

 

[adavisus]

I would be interested in learning how the U.S. government caused drought (4 of them) in the 1930's?

the gubment knew well the consequences. The dumbass hick farmers ignored them

With insufficient understanding of the ecology of the plains, farmers had conducted extensive deep plowing of the virgin topsoil of the Great Plains during the previous decade; this had displaced the native, deep-rooted grasses that normally trapped soil and moisture even during periods of drought and high winds. The rapid mechanization of farm equipment, especially small gasoline tractors, and widespread use of the combine harvester contributed to farmers' decisions to convert arid grassland (much of which received no more than 10 inches (250 mm) of precipitation per year) to cultivated cropland

 

[adavisus]

We can unpollute the rivers and we can replant the trees and reclaim the damage left by mining. Man cannot change nature.

It takes about 150 million years to unpollute co2 levels wandering up to 1000ppm. Thats how long it took that pollution in the permian period, to settle down to what we knew in the 20c (after it exterminated most life on the planet)