Global warming poll
- Thread starter over9five
- Start date
raceanoncr
Well-Known Member
Bovine methane gas
SeniorGeek
Below the Line
Lack of pirates is not listed, yet it is a widely recognized theory:
http://borkweb.com/story/global-warming-causes-pirate-population-decrease
https://web.archive.org/web/20070227130601/http://www.seanbonner.com/blog/archives/001857.php
You can search the web to learn more about this theory. Of course, the mainstream media conspiracy ignores it - and has even fabricated a cover story that makes it sound like something only crazies would believe. Typical response from those who are afraid of the truth.
Indonesia and Somalia are doing their part by harboring pirates - an obvious attempt by these coastal countries to offset the overall decline in pirate lifestyle in today's world. (As I understand it, though, the pirate lifestyle does not require acts of piracy - it is about traditional pirate customs of speech and dress. Those countries may require some re-education.)
Somebody is bound to start selling Pirate Offsets pretty soon....
Avast, I am doing my part. Last night, I went to see Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, um, mateys.
http://borkweb.com/story/global-warming-causes-pirate-population-decrease
https://web.archive.org/web/20070227130601/http://www.seanbonner.com/blog/archives/001857.php
You can search the web to learn more about this theory. Of course, the mainstream media conspiracy ignores it - and has even fabricated a cover story that makes it sound like something only crazies would believe. Typical response from those who are afraid of the truth.
Indonesia and Somalia are doing their part by harboring pirates - an obvious attempt by these coastal countries to offset the overall decline in pirate lifestyle in today's world. (As I understand it, though, the pirate lifestyle does not require acts of piracy - it is about traditional pirate customs of speech and dress. Those countries may require some re-education.)
Somebody is bound to start selling Pirate Offsets pretty soon....
Avast, I am doing my part. Last night, I went to see Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, um, mateys.
I am sure that man does have a certain amount of impact on our environment. We clear cut forest, like the Amazon, and do add a lot of pollution to the air. But natural disasters like volcanoes and forests fires add a lot of stuff to the atmosphere too. The cow flatulence and waves breaking in the ocean add to the greenhouse effect to a certain extent too, I don't know what we can do about that. And the Earth does spin around the Sun in an orbit that we have no say about. While man does do a lot of damage to our world, Mother Nature has a remarkable ability to repair a lot of it. We shouldn't worry about this though. Our queen, Nancy Pelosi, is now in Europe solving this very problem. I wonder if she flew over there on a private jet since she is so concerned about our environment?
moreluck
golden ticket member
When we used to drive the I-15 through Norco & Corona, there used to be miles of cow farms. The stink from those farms would permeate your car interior even with the windows rolled up tight.
I remember my granddaughter (8 at the time) rolled down the window, thinking the smell was coming from inside the car (it wasn't me!) We laughed so hard and then we were stuck with this gross odor for a few miles.
The cows have since been moved and the place is full of new housing now. Mira Loma Thoroughbred horse farm is still there (I think)
I remember my granddaughter (8 at the time) rolled down the window, thinking the smell was coming from inside the car (it wasn't me!) We laughed so hard and then we were stuck with this gross odor for a few miles.
The cows have since been moved and the place is full of new housing now. Mira Loma Thoroughbred horse farm is still there (I think)
diesel96
Well-Known Member
Coming from a Californian,I'm sure your familiar with the smog and poor air quality on a bright sunny day in the valley with no wind in highly populated concentrated areas.
Tell us,was that from "Cow Farts" or Car emmissions?
I bet if you drive pass Mira Loma Horse farm your gonna smell Horse crap.And if you drive by a Pig Farm your gonna smell Pig Crap.Denial of Human execeleration of global warming(even a small contribution) will only hurt our future generations.
BrownBlackandBlue
Member
I remember 25 years ago they were warning of us of the coming ice age and the advancing glaciers. I'm pretty sure the end of the world was supposed to have occurred by now, due to global cooling. What I see is politicians looking for new ways to reach into our pockets. Politicians fabricate emergencies and then tell you how they are the only ones who can save you from them. Otherwise what do you need them for?
DS
Fenderbender
I really think most of you are naive to think that the depletion of the ozone layer is caused by cow farts.Almost everyone owns a car.Start your car and sit in your garage and tell me
before you die that this is not caused by man.Look at the
yellowish spew from the processing plants.I think you may be in denial.I think that the wake up call to try to reduce emissions is a good thing.The damage is done.It may be even
more entertaining when nascar switches over to hydrogen.
I`m just giving my opinion,it does not really affect me because I`ll be dead before it matters.I dont even have any kids,but if I did,I`d want them to live long and healthy lives.
before you die that this is not caused by man.Look at the
yellowish spew from the processing plants.I think you may be in denial.I think that the wake up call to try to reduce emissions is a good thing.The damage is done.It may be even
more entertaining when nascar switches over to hydrogen.
I`m just giving my opinion,it does not really affect me because I`ll be dead before it matters.I dont even have any kids,but if I did,I`d want them to live long and healthy lives.
moreluck
golden ticket member
Global Warming: Methane Could Be Far Worse Than Carbon Dioxide
Categories
Environment
Technology
Methane gas, abundantly trapped as a half frozen slush in the northern hemisphere's tundra permafrost regions and at the bottom of the sea may well be a ticking time bomb, says geologist John Atcheson in an article published by the Baltimore Sun in December last year. Methane is about twenty times stronger as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Since arctic warming seems to procede faster than expected, there is a real danger that deposits of methane and similar gases trapped in normally frozen ground, may thaw out and "belch" into the atmosphere, wreaking havoc with our computer simulations of global warming.
According to Gregory Ryskin, associate professor of chemical engineering at Northwestern University, "explosive clouds of methane gas, initially trapped in stagnant bodies of water and suddenly released, could have killed off the majority of marine life and land animals and plants at the end of the Permian era" — long before dinosaurs lived and died. Ruskin believes that methane may have been the driving force in previous catastrophic changes of the earth's climate, where 95 percent of marine species and 70 percent of land species were lost in - geologically speaking - the blink of an eye.
You may ask "what can I do about this?". There are some suggestions in an article posted on the ZPEnergy site. Perhaps we should do everything possible to reverse the current trend towards global warming by burning less fossil fuels. The first target would be to go "carbon neutral", after which we should be figuring out ways to trap some of the excess carbon in the atmosphere and use it or store it in a non-gaseous form.
Using hydrogen instead of petroleum-derived fuels would be a first step, although we must find a way to produce the gas without burning more of the black stuff. Options range from the relatively inefficient direct-current electrolysis, solar hydrogen production at sea, the use of metal catalysts, high frequency electric currents, ultraviolet light and the action of bacteria which naturally produce hydrogen. It seems none of the technologies are quite ready to use, but there is no room for complacency.
Comes to mind the methane atmosphere that was recently found to be prevalent on Saturn's moon Titan. Could there be a point of break in the equilibrium of atmospheric composition where a celestial body's gas cover can switch from a predominantly nitrogen/oxygen composition to predominantly methane? If so, we better watch our steps because human bodies as well as most known animal species do not run on methane. We might be in for an unpleasant surprise.
John Acheson asks:
Apparently, three dissolved gasses, carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulphide and methane come together and indeed, a project to recover the methane from the waters of Lake Kivu, on Rwanda's north-western border, is in advanced stage of engineering. A similar project is underway to de-gas lakes Nyos and Monoun in Cameroon.
While such isolated cases as the lakes in Africa may be amenable to direct engineering solutions, capturing the gasses and putting the methane to use as a fuel, we may not have such an easy solution ready for widespread methane outgassing from the warming of larger bodies of water and huge stretches of half-frozen tundra.
The only possible solution to stem the steady increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide would seem to satisfy our energy needs without burning hydrocarbons.
Ticking Time Bomb
John Atcheson
Baltimore Sun
Categories
Environment
Technology
Methane gas, abundantly trapped as a half frozen slush in the northern hemisphere's tundra permafrost regions and at the bottom of the sea may well be a ticking time bomb, says geologist John Atcheson in an article published by the Baltimore Sun in December last year. Methane is about twenty times stronger as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Since arctic warming seems to procede faster than expected, there is a real danger that deposits of methane and similar gases trapped in normally frozen ground, may thaw out and "belch" into the atmosphere, wreaking havoc with our computer simulations of global warming.
According to Gregory Ryskin, associate professor of chemical engineering at Northwestern University, "explosive clouds of methane gas, initially trapped in stagnant bodies of water and suddenly released, could have killed off the majority of marine life and land animals and plants at the end of the Permian era" — long before dinosaurs lived and died. Ruskin believes that methane may have been the driving force in previous catastrophic changes of the earth's climate, where 95 percent of marine species and 70 percent of land species were lost in - geologically speaking - the blink of an eye.
You may ask "what can I do about this?". There are some suggestions in an article posted on the ZPEnergy site. Perhaps we should do everything possible to reverse the current trend towards global warming by burning less fossil fuels. The first target would be to go "carbon neutral", after which we should be figuring out ways to trap some of the excess carbon in the atmosphere and use it or store it in a non-gaseous form.
Using hydrogen instead of petroleum-derived fuels would be a first step, although we must find a way to produce the gas without burning more of the black stuff. Options range from the relatively inefficient direct-current electrolysis, solar hydrogen production at sea, the use of metal catalysts, high frequency electric currents, ultraviolet light and the action of bacteria which naturally produce hydrogen. It seems none of the technologies are quite ready to use, but there is no room for complacency.
Comes to mind the methane atmosphere that was recently found to be prevalent on Saturn's moon Titan. Could there be a point of break in the equilibrium of atmospheric composition where a celestial body's gas cover can switch from a predominantly nitrogen/oxygen composition to predominantly methane? If so, we better watch our steps because human bodies as well as most known animal species do not run on methane. We might be in for an unpleasant surprise.
John Acheson asks:
"How likely is it that humans will cause methane burps by burning fossil fuels? No one knows. But it is somewhere between possible and likely at this point, and it becomes more likely with each passing year that we fail to act. So forget rising sea levels, melting ice caps, more intense storms, more floods, destruction of habitats and the extinction of polar bears. Forget warnings that global warming might turn some of the world's major agricultural areas into deserts and increase the range of tropical diseases, even though this is the stuff we're pretty sure will happen."
In what might have been an early warning, in 1986, lake Nyos in Cameroon "burped" an amount of gases killing 1800 people, following a much smaller scale disaster on neighbouring lake Monoun two years earlier, which killed 37 people. While carbon dioxide has been fingered as the main culprit, there seems to have been a "fiery" component to the eruption indicating possible presence of combustible methane: "Skin discoloration found on some victims were tentatively interpreted as burns, but this diagnosis is still controversial. Witnesses on topographic highs report a loud noise originating from the lake and, in the case of lake Nyos, flashes of light visible over the lake".
Apparently, three dissolved gasses, carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulphide and methane come together and indeed, a project to recover the methane from the waters of Lake Kivu, on Rwanda's north-western border, is in advanced stage of engineering. A similar project is underway to de-gas lakes Nyos and Monoun in Cameroon.
While such isolated cases as the lakes in Africa may be amenable to direct engineering solutions, capturing the gasses and putting the methane to use as a fuel, we may not have such an easy solution ready for widespread methane outgassing from the warming of larger bodies of water and huge stretches of half-frozen tundra.
The only possible solution to stem the steady increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide would seem to satisfy our energy needs without burning hydrocarbons.
Ticking Time Bomb
John Atcheson
Baltimore Sun
Overpaid Union Thug
Well-Known Member
DS,I don't believe the theory about cow farts either. For about ten years, my family ran a small cattle business (Limousine was the breed of beef cattle). I never noticed them standing around farting at all. They sure dida lot though!
No one said cow farts contributed to climate change. The only reason the fact that cow farts put out more CO2 than cars was to show how little, if at all, cars contribute to climate change. It's a good comparison because if car farts don't contribute to global warming than neither does driving your car. I heard it on the local talk show here. It was meant as a joke but also as a good comparison.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Big,
Some quarters of the environmental movement have asserted "cow gas" as a source and some vegetarians have taken up this mantra to elevate their own cause. I have nothing against vegetarians as at times I wish I had the will power to do it but I still like my T-Bone steak and ice cold brew to much at this point. Vegetables as they are grown these days aren't carbon neutral either so it's not the perfect world.
Scratch,
Regarding your first post. I think you about got it right. Global warming as it's called is likely caused from a variety of sources. Yes, man is included but so is nature itself and that aspect is really beyond our control as Scratch pointed out.
At the same time the bigger question we should be asking is with all these natural sources being potential or contributing causes, should we change or modify our own actions to reduce the impact that could potentially result? Good question but again the answer is not so clear and in this area is where you get the political religionists of both sides who want to command the debate to advance their own positions of power and importance.
As for cars being a source, we do have a huge incentive to change what we are doing and a benefit to that change could be a lessening impact by mankind with his cars on the environment but the primary reason for the change would be to lessen the need for us to import foreign oil from either Middle East sources or from self grandising, ego maniacs like Chavez to our south whose only interest is his own power. For once we all have a real reason to change dramatically by what means our mode of conveyance on a daily basis is and we just get bogged down in petty arguments of a political nature and it's mostly cow IMO.
It's ironic that here's an area that if a solution or better yet solutions is found, the positives for both problems could be immense. Also, we're not the only one's paying for high oil so our solutions could spark a paradigm shift globally and with our solutions we could find ourselves having cornered a market so to speak placing ourselves really in the global driver seat not by being or being seen as a global problem creater but rather a problem solver. Which road do we take?
BTW Scratch, can you believe this smoke from the wild fires? I hate and can't believe I'm saying this but for the fires and the rain deficit, we need a hurricane. Is there some way we could trade some of our "BONE DRY" days to Texas for some of their rain. I'm sure both sides would be extremely happy with such a business arrangement!
Some quarters of the environmental movement have asserted "cow gas" as a source and some vegetarians have taken up this mantra to elevate their own cause. I have nothing against vegetarians as at times I wish I had the will power to do it but I still like my T-Bone steak and ice cold brew to much at this point. Vegetables as they are grown these days aren't carbon neutral either so it's not the perfect world.
Scratch,
Regarding your first post. I think you about got it right. Global warming as it's called is likely caused from a variety of sources. Yes, man is included but so is nature itself and that aspect is really beyond our control as Scratch pointed out.
At the same time the bigger question we should be asking is with all these natural sources being potential or contributing causes, should we change or modify our own actions to reduce the impact that could potentially result? Good question but again the answer is not so clear and in this area is where you get the political religionists of both sides who want to command the debate to advance their own positions of power and importance.
As for cars being a source, we do have a huge incentive to change what we are doing and a benefit to that change could be a lessening impact by mankind with his cars on the environment but the primary reason for the change would be to lessen the need for us to import foreign oil from either Middle East sources or from self grandising, ego maniacs like Chavez to our south whose only interest is his own power. For once we all have a real reason to change dramatically by what means our mode of conveyance on a daily basis is and we just get bogged down in petty arguments of a political nature and it's mostly cow
IMO. It's ironic that here's an area that if a solution or better yet solutions is found, the positives for both problems could be immense. Also, we're not the only one's paying for high oil so our solutions could spark a paradigm shift globally and with our solutions we could find ourselves having cornered a market so to speak placing ourselves really in the global driver seat not by being or being seen as a global problem creater but rather a problem solver. Which road do we take?
BTW Scratch, can you believe this smoke from the wild fires? I hate and can't believe I'm saying this but for the fires and the rain deficit, we need a hurricane. Is there some way we could trade some of our "BONE DRY" days to Texas for some of their rain. I'm sure both sides would be extremely happy with such a business arrangement!
BTW Scratch, can you believe this smoke from the wild fires? I hate and can't believe I'm saying this but for the fires and the rain deficit, we need a hurricane. Is there some way we could trade some of our "BONE DRY" days to Texas for some of their rain. I'm sure both sides would be extremely happy with such a business arrangement!
Sunday morning my wife and I got up and noticed all that smoke. Our youngest son graduated high school Saturday night and along with his older brother, set off some fireworks in our cul-de-sac. We were worried they had set the woods on fire, I had told them to stop before I went to bed. That smoke was from a wildfire hundreds of miles away in South Georgia and Florida that has been burning for several weeks. I think the cause of this fire is arson, but it just as easily been caused by a lightning strike in our current drought. Today I am contributing hickory smoke to my neighborhood, I have a Boston pork butt, whole chicken, and some sausages slow cooking on my smoker all day.
I think that there are multiple factors contributing to global warming, man certainly contributes but as moreluck's post points out processes within the earth's ecosystem also contribute. Although I am really skeptical about Al Gore's apocolyptic views maybe his hype will serve the greater good and motivate more r & d into cost effective, clean and efficient alternatives to fossil fuels.
If anyone ever watches Penn & Teller's show on Showtime their latest one is about energy. They convinced me that building new nuclear energy plants may actually be a good thing for the environment...
After I originally posted this I decided maybe I should post a warning about the the Penn and Teller show. It's for adults only, there's occassional gratuitous nudity, terrible language and they test drive a hybrid car by sending a same sex couple on a blind date in the car...
If anyone ever watches Penn & Teller's show on Showtime their latest one is about energy. They convinced me that building new nuclear energy plants may actually be a good thing for the environment...
After I originally posted this I decided maybe I should post a warning about the the Penn and Teller show. It's for adults only, there's occassional gratuitous nudity, terrible language and they test drive a hybrid car by sending a same sex couple on a blind date in the car...
Last edited:
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Cheryl,
More and more environmentialist are coming to that same conclusion and I even saw an interview with Ralph Nader where he even admitted it was worth giving a look as he said the technology has gotten much better and safer but he still offers his general reservations and someone needs to always fill that gap.
As for Al Gore's movie and other efforts like his, you may disagree with the conclusions but I think we can all agree that if it's possible to move away from fossil fuels and into a renewable clean energy source, we should. I mean let's face it, take the need for oil out of the picture and what importance does the Middle East hold then or where can Chavez sell his oil and get the money he needs to stay in power? Odd that the very financial weapon used against us is the very one we give them most willingly!
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Just ran across this piece on the subject and thought I'd pass it on to the group for consideration.
http://www.mises.org/story/2571
Yeah susie, it's another one of those evil libertarian links!
http://www.mises.org/story/2571
Yeah susie, it's another one of those evil libertarian links!
