Won't increased gas prices help global warming?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Apr 30 2006, 08:39 PM) [snapback]247698[/snapback]</div>

Nope, because people would still pay....or quit work and go on well fare then you pay more .

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Apr 30 2006, 09:45 PM) [snapback]247726[/snapback]</div>

Most people I see that are welfare recipiants do drive, I to dont have statistics to back me up either..

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Apr 30 2006, 08:39 PM) [snapback]247698[/snapback]</div>

Nope. Global Warming (and even Katrina) is not caused by humans (or even President Bush!;-)). Humans only contribute 3 to 4 percent of all CO2 introduced into the atmosphere. And CO2 is only a small portion (about 3 to 4%) of the so called greenhouse effect.

But it makes for good politics.

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils...house_data.html

2006 #4

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ May 1 2006, 10:02 AM) [snapback]247913[/snapback]</div>

So why have temperatures risen?

 

Engage your brain, viking31. Okay, CO2 is naturally produced by lots of things. And its absorbed by lots of things. And basically, it's in equilibrium - the level of CO2 is fairly stable. There are long term cycles, but it's basically steady.

So, then we go and make sure that an 3% extra is produced every year (and increasing). The thing goes out of balance, and the amount of CO2 in the air goes up. Dramatically, and fast. CO2 levels in the atmosphere have gone up over 30% in the last 2 centuries. Can you comprehend how seismic a shift this is? And it's accelerating.

That site you cite basically seems to be an attempt to create small-looking numbers to make it look like the effects are insignificant. It's basically nonsense. It's right about one thing though - Kyoto is not nearly enough. I don't have much faith that we're capable of fixing this the easy way.

Assuming you're honestly misunderstanding this thing, and don't have some sort of psychological/religious disorder that requires you to deny basic science, go and read Wikipedia's entry on global warming. It's a good primer, with some excellent graphs that give a good idea of the scale and speed of what's happening.


I also note that there's some dishonest selective quoting going on there from scientists. I suggest you find some better sources of information.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusblue @ May 1 2006, 10:56 AM) [snapback]247931[/snapback]</div>

Have they? Even that point is arguable. But even if for the sake of argument temperatures on earth are rising to some degree, one must realize the Earth's temperature is not a constant over time. The Earth naturally goes through temperature variations over the years. Very small variations in the output of the Sun can have relatively large effects on the Earth's temperature. Ice ages come and go. Glaciers build and melt. Species evolve and then go extinct.

What really irks me regarding the entire Global Warming debate (now you got me started!) is the political aspect. I believe many people think if somehow the Democrats (the Utopia Party) were in power Global Warming would stop (or not even have ever occurred), Saddam would send us flowers every Mother's Day, everyone would drive a hybrid, the minimum wage would be $25/hour so everyone could make a "decent" living, etc...

Don't get me wrong, I think BOTH parties meddle too much in our lives.

2006 #4

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ May 1 2006, 11:53 AM) [snapback]247955[/snapback]</div>

LMAO Good one!

I thought we were Global Cooling, too many arguments.... This side is right err no this side is right I guess we will have to wait and see .

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(KMO @ May 1 2006, 11:37 AM) [snapback]247946[/snapback]</div>

Hmm, Wikipedia, which IS about as far from a scientific journal as can be, starts out with a study by UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Now, you engage me with personal attacks (engage your brain, psychological/religious disorders) and your scientific data is based by reports from the UN. Not a good way to start out a healthy debate. I stand by my numbers.

2006 #4

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ May 1 2006, 09:02 AM) [snapback]247913[/snapback]</div>

Even so, can't you logically agree that blowing all this extra CO2 in the air might be bad? And might lead to something bad if we don't decrease it a little?

If only there was some kind of hole in the atmosphere for all this extra CO2 to escape??? Hmmmmm. What, there is! (I know CO2 and other gases don't escape through the ozone hole, I'm only joking)

According to Times Magazine, April 3 2006...

CO2 at last ice age - 180 ppm
After the glaciers retreated - 280 ppm
Today - 381 ppm

Of the 20 hottest years on record, 19 have occurred since 1980. 2005 was one of the hottest years in more than a century, according to NASA.

It's getting warmer-period.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ May 1 2006, 10:02 PM) [snapback]247913[/snapback]</div>

And your source makes bad science. To blithely dismiss human causes for rising CO2 levels would be laughable if the consequences of a corresponding human inaction on the issue weren't so scary. Reportedly, there are no, repeat NO, genuine scientific studies (i.e., not done by Exxon Mobil hacks) that contradict the observation that global temperatures are rising at enormously accelerating rates and that human activity is the engine driving that rise. People don't want to acknowledge the problem because the solutions seem so daunting and impossible, and we are such creatures of habit. Initial solutions are available with present technologies; what we lack is not solutions, it's awareness and political will. Much more "satisfying" to our alleged leaders to go after real and imaginary "terrorists" than to work doggedly at changing a culture that is destroying the planet.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ May 1 2006, 10:02 AM) [snapback]247913[/snapback]</div>

Good grief....

As already stated by KMO, there is a huge CO2 cycle/balance that is upset by humans introducing that extra 3% into the atmosphere. The quanity of CO2 involved in the carbon cycle is essentially irrelevant, it is the imbalance that is relavent. That 3% to 4% you mention is enormous and is throwing the entire plants life cycle out of balance.

And you may want to consider these quotes from the United States Deparetment of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Institution.
"Is the climate warming? Yes."
and
"recent decades appear to be the warmest since at least about 1000AD, and the warming since the late 19th century is unprecedented over the last 1000 years."
and
"Global mean sea level has been rising at an average rate of 1 to 2 mm/year over the past 100 years, which is significantly larger than the rate averaged over the last several thousand years."

And this from NASA:

http://www.scenta.co.uk/scenta/news.cfm?ci...5644862587751TR

and:

"NASA-led scientists say ocean data ties manmade emissions to warmer Earth"
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7665636/

Or consider the following based on information from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography.

"Stark Effects From Global Warming
CO2 emissions are causing oceans to warm, ocean chemistry to change, and rainfall patterns to shift"
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/83/i12/8312globalwarming.html

and

"Studies confirm global warming underway"
http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.htm...143&sid=5548239

This from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies
"2005 Warmest Year in Over a Century"
http://grounds-mag.com/news/warmest_year_030706/

But I'm sure you are better informed than they are....

 

Don't forget to take in account Global Dimming which is slightly masking the full-effects of Global Warming. We need to reduce both particulate pollution as well as greenhouse gases.