Mount St. Helens Glacier

We hear all sorts of things. Hard to figure out which are true. For example, the earth's magnetic field is supposed to reverse every 26 million years or so (and not sinusoidally). According to the orientation of the magnetism in the seabed rocks near plate boundaries, it's been claimed that the reversal itself only takes about a quarter of a million years.

Click to expand...

Paleomagnetism is not merely a claim. There is sufficent solid test methods to validate this and support its suppositions.

Pommie said:

With this in mind, shouldn't we all be required to paint our roofs white.
Mike.

Click to expand...

Not actually a bad idea! It would keep the house cooler in the summer if nothing else. I don't know how much of the planet's surface area is roof tops, but I don't think it is enough to make much of a difference.

Whether global warming is human caused or not, even if it isn't, that shouldn't be an excuse to keep dumping stuff into the atmosphere (or excesses of it) that shouldn't be there in the first place.

Click to expand...

Exactly! I guess I'm not a gambler either.

I'm not convinced that the exposed areas left after the demise of Arctic ice is mostly dirt

Click to expand...

You're probably right there. Most of the melt currently is uncovering water which also absorbs more solar radiation than ice.

Aloefundi said:

I'm 100% against the notion that Global Warming is an issue. I agree that it's just another way for the elite to gain finacially.

Click to expand...

They are already gaining financially. By running oil companies, car manufacturing, etc. Who do you think the global warming refuting scientists work for anyway? This whole issue is reminiscent of the tobacco companies "scientists" denying that inhaling smoke is bad for you.

In general the rooftops and pavement of large cities are better at absorbing energy then what they replaced. Because of this the temperature in a large city it typically warmer then the surrounding countryside.

maybe white roofs, sidewalks, and streets would help ?

It would seem to me that if you had white sidewalks and streets, the sunlight would then reflect back to the atmosphere where it would then again reflect back to some other location, like the poles for example.

Which brings us back to the global gases problem, as it is these that redirect the light energy back to the planet instead of allowing the light to just travel out to space.

dknguyen said:

Whether global warming is human caused or not, even if it isn't, that shouldn't be an excuse to keep dumping stuff into the atmosphere (or excesses of it) that shouldn't be there in the first place. I think that's the problem with the attitude that global warming is not an issue. It's just TOO easy to not do anything about it and the attitude that "X problem" is not being caused by us leads too many people to believe it is okay to keep doing "Y activity" even when said activity clearly isn't good to begin with.

Click to expand...

I agree fully that we've got to quite dumping crap into our environment, and that we could/should make more efficient use of our resources. All the 'single-use' and 'disposable' product should be banned. We should only just what we need, not hoard or stockpile until the price is right.

The part that offends me, is these eco-nuts seem to think I need to be trick and scammed into do what's right. I don't like being pushed or threatened. I have a lot of trusting the motive, if I have no faith in the crap their selling. Are they really interested in cleaning up the planet, or just cleaning out our bank accounts? The bulk of of most every price tag, is profits. There are very few cases, where somebody isn't stuffing money in their pockets. Businessmen don't like green products, it cuts into the easy money. Green products tend be more expensive, as they are a one time purchase, and meant to be reused, so the manufacturer needs to offset lost profits. A $20 pack of cloth diapers are good enough to last the whole time a baby needs them, not as convenient or as pleasant to deal with, but what would you spend on the disposables?

We've been living like this for hundreds of years, can't expect to change it in 20. The threat of what might happen, to people several generation after we're long dead, isn't going to have much effect, other than raise skeptism over motives. The drastic and immediate changes Al Gore is call for, will probably make things worse.

Mikebits said:

It would seem to me that if you had white sidewalks and streets, the sunlight would then reflect back to the atmosphere where it would then again reflect back to some other location, like the poles for example.

Which brings us back to the global gases problem, as it is these that redirect the light energy back to the planet instead of allowing the light to just travel out to space.

Click to expand...

The polar snow and ice reflect some of the energy back into space. I would expect a white city to do the same.

How much energy gets back out depends on the concentration of greenhouse gases.

The issue of global warming has been reflected across the atmosphere and into our television sets so much so, it is not a surprise that the patience of the masses has been melting at the very utterance of the words green friendly, environmental, and of course, global warming.

Indeed the media has had their fair share of this warm welcoming wagon in pursuit of a global story. I keep waiting for the next sky is falling story, but to the naysayer that refutes all scientific evidence that has been documented since teenage girls wore skirts with hand woven puppy dogs on them. I have to ask, what evidence do you know of that refutes the abundance of scientific data that supports this claim.

Why would a person like Al Gore who has enough money in his bank account to buy a small country have any ulterior motive to deceive the public? He has brought sound evidence to the table to support his claims. I would really like to see the evidence that show the other side of this heated topic.

Anyone who has had a basic geology course knows that the planet has cyclic climate changes, and this issue becomes a non argument as no one refutes this. The argument is; is human technology speeding up the process.

My Golden Idol is Tarnished

Mikebits said:

...since teenage girls wore skirts with hand woven puppy dogs on them.

Click to expand...

I always thought they were iron-ons. Poodles, by the way...

Go Nuclear

One obvious way to reduce the greenhouse gasses is to go nuclear. But, it's always seemed incomprehensible and ridiculous to me to put the nuclear waste into drums (that will surely eventually leak) and put it into caverns, where it needs to be constantly guarded, monitored and audited...for...essentially, forever..

Does anybody here know just how much nuclear waste the average plant produces? How often the waste is collected and how much is collected each time?

I think a better way to deal with the nuclear waste is to grind it up, loosely encapsulate it, load it onto ships and then dump it into the ocean. NO! Not just dump it overboard. Rather, sail along a geologic subduction zone and feed it out over 100's or 1000's of miles so it's very dilute. Then, time will allow the earth to swallow it into the molten core for the next couple of billion years (until that magma re-emerges somewhere...with the radioactive material both weaker and even more dilute).

Does that sound reasonable?

Baby steps are better than no steps....

dknguyen said:

It's just TOO easy to not do anything about it and the attitude that "X problem" is not being caused by us leads too many people to believe it is okay to keep doing "Y activity" even when said activity clearly isn't good to begin with.

Click to expand...

Well, the obvious solution to that is...do something...

If it's an incremental thing and it doesn't work, no big loss and you learn. If it does work, you refine it. Come on, Mr. Gore...this is NOT rocket surgery!

Mikebits said:

Why would a person like Al Gore who has enough money in his bank account to buy a small country have any ulterior motive to deceive the public? He has brought sound evidence to the table to support his claims. I would really like to see the evidence that show the other side of this heated topic.

Click to expand...

Have you seen where these rich guys ever reach a point where they have 'enough'? Do they ever stop trying to get ever more wealthy? Why doesn't Mr. Gore, and a few of his wealthy, and equally committed friends privately fund some of the changes he's calling for, or subsidizing those who wouldn't profit much until the masses get on board?

How about going out and helping thousands of households get off the grid across the country. Real working examples of what's available, costs, savings, and what you get to live with. So much easier to spend other people's money, isn't it.

Kind of curious, Al Gore came within just a few hundred votes of being president, why didn't he try again? Look at the completion? He would have had to work very hard to get the votes this time. Obviously I'm not a huge fan, but he would be a much better president then whatever we get stuck with in November...

Why doesn't Mr. Gore, and a few of his wealthy, and equally committed friends privately fund some of the changes he's calling for

Click to expand...

Does contributing all proceeds from his book the Inconvenient truth count?

I hear a whole lot of old bags arguing about the weather. STFU, post data, postulate theories soundly based on that data and stop arguing. This forum banter is about as functional as pissing into the wind; All you end up doing is releasing some liquid and needing a shower! Again all this environmental concern going around your locality or the world in general serves one and only one purpose and that's to fuel worry about our own asses. Mother nature is in absolutely no danger of any kind whatsoever and it's our own human arrogance and ignorance that puts us in the place of believing we are the cause of what it is we go through every day. The only thing that needs saving is us, and not in a biblical sense. We've been around no more than at max 200 thousand years. That's not even a geological speed bump, nothing the human mind hates mores than coming to terms with our own passing. Not one thing we have as a species, society, or culture come up with can as yet do anything about it. We are slaves to time and nature more so than nature is our slave in our time.

Can't we all just.....get along? (Rodney King)

HarveyH42 said:

How about going out and helping thousands of households get off the grid across the country....

Click to expand...

Uhm...you do realize that you are essentially advocating a privately funded welfare system to go along with our highly successful government operated one.

A couple of decades ago some people found out that Hugh Hefner was worth $100,000,000 and were pissing and moaning that it was just damn rude of him not to share out that wealth with the poor. So, old Hef responded (very appropriately) that, he could indeed give away his 100 mil to all Americans (about 200 million at the time), giveing each man, woman and child...$0.50 and leaving his Playboy empire dead broke.

Sceadwian said:

This forum banter is about as functional as pissing into the wind; All you end up doing is releasing some liquid and needing a shower!

Click to expand...

Given enough wind, you'll get your shower...what's more, it will be golden!

But, it's true. The human race isn't even a pimple on the butt of nature and no matter what we do or what happens to us (regardless of how dire that may be) is of zero consequence.

So, the best we can do is to try to figure out what's best for our survival and do it (I guess it's fortunate for the "dumb" beasts of the planet that what's best for us is also best for them). Griping about what Al Gore should or should not do is really of little help. Hugging a tree is of little help. Having an, "Earth Day" is of little help. Studying the science and developing working strategies and trying different things...that may not be our ultimate salvation but, at least it's likely to help....some...

crashsite said:

Uhm...you do realize that you are essentially advocating a privately funded welfare system to go along with our highly successful government operated one.

Click to expand...

Not what I had in mind. I meant that he should go out and set up example homes, so the neighbors and communities could see first hand what can be done. Even if the people around these examples don't copy the concept homes, they'll adopt some of the energy saving features. You don't power a home directly off solar panels or wind turbines, you run off batteries. Which means you have to conserve power, use more efficient appliances. There is a lot more to it then just handing out the money. It's a different way of thinking, a different sense of responsibility. It'll teach people to conserve, or they'll have to wait until the batteries recharge. Could make a good reality type show. Giving someone the equipment to get off the grid is only part of it, the homeowners still need to change their lifestyles. It's the attitudes about energy usage that needs to be changed. On the grid, you get all the energy you want, just have to keep writing the monthly check.

HarveyH42 said:

Not what I had in mind. I meant that he should go out and set up example homes, so the neighbors and communities could see first hand what can be done. Even if the people around these examples don't copy the concept homes, they'll adopt some of the energy saving features. You don't power a home directly off solar panels or wind turbines, you run off batteries. Which means you have to conserve power, use more efficient appliances. There is a lot more to it then just handing out the money. It's a different way of thinking, a different sense of responsibility. It'll teach people to conserve, or they'll have to wait until the batteries recharge. Could make a good reality type show. Giving someone the equipment to get off the grid is only part of it, the homeowners still need to change their lifestyles. It's the attitudes about energy usage that needs to be changed. On the grid, you get all the energy you want, just have to keep writing the monthly check.

Click to expand...

You need to take a visit to C.A.T. in Wales.

Mikebits said:

Does contributing all proceeds from his book the Inconvenient truth count?

Click to expand...

Does contributing to yourself really count? If he's the founder/CEO of the organization, and still controls the money, it's still his money. He just pays less taxes.

Kind of reminds of Hilary Clinton's campaign loans. She spent $12 million of her own money, on her own campaign, lost, and wants the money back. If she can get her $12 million contribution back, does that entitle everyone who gave here money to a refund as well? She spent the money, but will she actually have lost the $12 million at the end of the day?

Do you see what I'm getting at, these people flash the money around, but never really let go. Both Democrats...

Wandering

HarveyH42 said:

Kind of reminds of Hilary Clinton's campaign loans. She spent $12 million of her own money, on her own campaign, lost, and wants the money back....

Click to expand...

While I agree that that topic is a shenanigan that should be closely looked at...it really does stray pretty far from the topic of glaciers and how they relate to global warming.

crashsite said:

While I agree that that topic is a shenanigan that should be closely looked at...it really does stray pretty far from the topic of glaciers and how they relate to global warming.

Click to expand...

The point is that we are going into a warming trend, but the extent and predictions of impending doom are debatable. Where is the evidence that this trend is going to be so much worse then anything in the past? What was the limiting factor in the past? There must have been some reason for the previous warming trends to stop, and a cooling cycle to begin. Some glaciers are showing signs of melting, but a new glacier is forming on St. Helens? Is it over already?

The Global Warming should not be the focus, it's going to continue on course. It's just being used by the the tree-buggers get more people on the green-planet movement. I don't agree with scare tactics, con-games and scams, as means to get people to clean up our planet, and quit wasting resources. I fully agree with the goals, just not the deceptive methods of this particular group.

Wasn't the hairspray hole in the ozone layer back in the 70's suppose to letting too much heat energy out over the polar region? And we were heading to a new Ice Age, if we didn't stop using aerosol propellants?

We have the power

HarveyH42 said:

The point is that we are going into a warming trend, but the extent and predictions of impending doom are debatable.

Click to expand...

I think that was the point during the age of the dinosaurs and wooly mammoths. Creatures that just mucked around...cluelessly...and accepted whatever fate befell them.

But, we've evolved to the point of being able to not only be aware of the phenomenum but, to be able to quantify it and act on it. Even the liberal arts majors, with their naive, tree-hugging philosophy at least get the concept, if not the science

To me, the point is to go after it aggressively. If the ultimate result is failure and extinction...well...in the dying gasp of the last human, he/she can at least proudly say, "We gave it our best shot".

HarveyH42 said:

Wasn't the hairspray hole in the ozone layer back in the 70's suppose to letting too much heat energy out over the polar region? And we were heading to a new Ice Age, if we didn't stop using aerosol propellants?

Click to expand...

My understanding of the ozone layer was not so much global warming as a UV protection issue. Is ozone a greenhouse gas? Being so high up, would the ozone layer even trap or release heat in such a way as to affect the surface in anything other than marginally compared to the carbon thing and other surface heating factors?