PDA

View Full Version : Climate change making ominous mark on Midwest


Mr. Laz
07-02-2006, 11:53 AM
Climate change making ominous mark on Midwest

It’s not just warmer winters: The changes could affect the food we eat, the energy we consume and the forests we treasure.
By KEVIN MURPHY and KAREN DILLON

The Kansas City StarSnow sometimes piled so high in the 1960s and 1970s that Gladstone postman Bob Drayer couldn’t pull his truck up to mailboxes.

In the early 1980s, Mary Beth Kirkham crunched across campus on ice cleats at Kansas State University in Manhattan, where she teaches in the Department of Agronomy.

“I’ve given away my ice cleats; we don’t have those cold winters anymore,” Kirkham said.

Although skeptics say our changing weather is just part of a natural cycle, many scientists say winter’s diminished fury here is the most visible piece of evidence in the Midwest of global warming.

But there are other signs as well.

Wildlife and plants native to the South, such as the armadillo and the southern magnolia, now are thriving here.

Flowers bloom two weeks earlier than usual, bird migration timetables are out of whack, and heat and drought have dropped many area lake and river levels below normal for several years.

For example, all nine pools at Cheyenne Bottoms — a central Kansas lowland and major migratory bird flyway — were empty last month in the driest spell in 15 years. Kansas City is having a drought, with only 55 percent of its normal precipitation so far this year.

Global warming is drawing global attention, from the stream of studies documenting higher temperatures to the best-selling book and new movie by Al Gore called “An Inconvenient Truth,” which sounds alarms about the trend.

Climate projections call for continued warmer weather the rest of the century, which could alter farming, recreation and water supplies and increase health problems associated with heat, pollution and insect-borne diseases.

“Right now the biggest debate is not whether (global warming) is occurring … but how much mankind is to blame,” said Tony Lupo, a University of Missouri professor of atmospheric science.

Many scientists say the tipping point, where humans cannot reverse the trend, could be within 10 years.

“This is a much, much bigger issue” than what most people understand, said Ronald P. Neilson, an internationally recognized bioclimatologist at the USDA Forest Service in Oregon. “Haste is important.”

Past predicts future

Weather patterns of the last two or three decades form the basis for scientists’ predictions.

Consider:

• In the past five years, an average of 13 inches of snow fell annually in Kansas City, less than in any five-year period since 1938, according to the National Climatic Data Center. Two to five feet of snow a year was not uncommon in the 1950s and 1960s.

• January was the warmest on record in Kansas City, February the driest, and April the third-warmest. In fact, nine of the past 10 winters in Kansas and eight of 10 in Missouri were warmer than the average of the past 110 years, according to state climate offices.

• Annual average temperatures have topped 110-year averages for eight straight years in Kansas and seven of eight in Missouri.

Climate change has resulted largely from greenhouse gases — most notably carbon dioxide and methane — products of burning fossil fuels for electricity and gasoline to power vehicles, among other things. Those gases trap the sun’s rays in the atmosphere, heating up the planet.

The average level of carbon dioxide globally has risen 30 percent in the past 150 years, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations-commissioned group of scientists. The average global temperature has increased one degree in roughly the past 100 years, but the increase has been greater in some places, such as the Arctic, where glaciers are melting.

Yet skeptics say many scientists don’t express doubts about global warming because they are benefiting from the infusion of billions of dollars for climate-change research.

“How can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes?” Richard Lindzen, a professor of atmospheric science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote in a recent opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal. “Only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.”

But scientists say that the one-degree increase is an average and that temperatures have increased greatly in some parts of the world. In a report to Congress last month, the National Academy of Sciences said a broad review of studies indicated that Earth hasn’t been this warm in 400 years, and possibly for 2,000 years or much longer.

“There is no question that the fastest rate of global warming has occurred in the past 150 years” and that humans have played a role, said Leonard Krishtalka, director of the Natural History Museum and Biodiversity Research Center at the University of Kansas.

Last year was the globe’s warmest on record, according to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. It eclipsed 1998, which experienced El Niño, a warming of the ocean that affects upper air flow and weather patterns worldwide.

“This past year, we achieved about the same temperature without the benefit of El Niño, which is worrisome,” said Michael Palecki, climatologist for the Midwest Regional Climate Center at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Scientists have used computer modeling to predict climate here and across the United States.

By 2100, many scientists say, the average temperature in Kansas could increase by 4 degrees in fall and winter. In Missouri, they expect average temperatures to rise by 3 degrees in winter, and precipitation could increase by as much as 60 percent in summer.

However, the greater heat would hastily evaporate moisture in the soil, reducing the benefit of precipitation even if it increases, scientists said.

Effects on daily life

Numerous scientific studies predict that climate change will affect most aspects of our lives, including the milk we drink, the steaks we barbecue, the places we travel and where we get our electricity.

Heat stress can cause chickens to quit laying eggs, dairy cows to stop producing milk and beef cattle to lose hundreds of pounds, raising the cost of eggs, milk and beef. But awareness that lengthy heat waves lie ahead allows farmers time to plan how to keep their animals cool, such as by installing cooling systems in barns.

The countryside will be altered, bioscience studies say, with climate change threatening the survival of the lush forests that stretch from the eastern seaboard to the Ozarks, drawing millions of tourists each summer.

Because of rainfall, forests initially could expand. But eventually, because of heat and evaporating moisture, the forests will shrink and become susceptible to fires and invasive species. Already scientists are studying the swarms of tree-killing pests that are invading forests in the eastern half of the nation, said Neilson at the Forest Service.

“The bugs are on the move,” he said.

Gradually, the general public is becoming aware of the effects of climate change, said Bill Stanley, director of the global climate change initiative of the Nature Conservancy, based in Virginia.

“It’s hard from the scientific perspective to always make the direct link between global warming and some of these events,” Stanley said. “But when you start to see the sheer number of these things happening all at once, then you realize this isn’t something that is specific to a place — this is something that is happening on a global basis. When you add them up, it turns into a real compelling case.”

While many climatologists predict drought in the decades ahead, they say there also will be periods of intense storms that could cause flooding because hard, dry ground produces strong runoff.

The floods could hamper rail transportation — Kansas City is the second-largest rail hub in the nation — and fast-moving, high water on the Mississippi River could cause long delays in barge-delivered products, transportation officials said.

Low water levels from drought, on the other hand, would curtail barge traffic and hamper the operation of power plants that use water from lakes and rivers to cool their systems. If water becomes less available, power production may become more expensive, and the costs could be passed on to customers in higher electricity bills.

Last year, flooding knocked out rail lines and interrupted major supplies of Wyoming coal to power plants, making it more difficult to supply electricity to customers in Kansas City and elsewhere in the Midwest.

Calls for action

Realizing that the nation’s power supply can be susceptible to flooding and that power plants are a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, many scientists, researchers and government officials are exploring ways to decentralize energy production.

In Iowa, individuals are installing wind turbines in their backyards, and the turbines also are going up in school yards. Excess energy is being sold back to the utilities, generating a revenue stream for schools and residents.

Many scientists say that even if emissions of greenhouse gases were stopped right now, the existing pollution would continue warming Earth for three to 10 decades.

Last year, the Kyoto Treaty — signed by 141 countries but not the United States — took effect. It requires participants to implement strong policies to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

Because the Bush administration refused to join in the Kyoto Treaty, the U.S. Conference of Mayors unanimously passed the Mayors Climate Protection Agreement a few months later.

That agreement, signed by mayors in the Kansas City area, asks cities to urge federal and state governments to reduce their levels of greenhouse gases by 2012 and to take action in their own communities “from anti-sprawl land-use policies to urban forest restoration to public information campaigns” to reduce the gases.

“There hasn’t been a serious investment at the state and local and national level to really take advantage of the tremendous advances in technology that could meet our energy needs and help keep our energy prices down,” said Bruce Nilles, a Sierra Club attorney in Chicago. “You can’t put your head in the sand.”

Still, some argue that climate change is just a natural phenomenon involving cycles of drought, cold, heat and precipitation.

“I’ve heard about global warming almost every day for 25 years. I strongly believe that weather patterns are just that — weather patterns,” said Steve Miller, spokesman for Sunflower Cooperative, which owns power plants in central and western Kansas.

But tell that to Springfield resident Carl Fargon, a retired truck driver who was fishing for crappie recently at Stockton Lake, where water levels are down again this year.

“I’m 66 years old, and I can tell a big difference,” Fargon said. Winters are not as cold and snowy, and summers are hotter and more humid, aggravating Fargon’s lung disease, he said. Experts can argue the point, but Fargon says of global warming: “It’s pretty well a fact, I would think.”

FringeNC
07-02-2006, 12:11 PM
Let's measure the cost and BENEFITS of all those supposed changes. My guess is that the benefits outweigh the costs. What gets me is when talking about global warming, only costs are discussed. Why?

KC Jones
07-02-2006, 04:15 PM
I have a simple solution... everyone just moves one state north. We can give New Mexico back to Mexico, but hold on to Arizona and Cali. We'll take Quebec from Canada, and ship the quebecois to the swamps of Louisiana to help New Orleans rebuild with a new influx of frenchmen.

htismaqe
07-03-2006, 05:34 AM
Um, they ignored like 80 years of recorded weather. The furthest "recollection" they mentioned was the 1970's?

CYCLICAL is a word. Look it up.

tiptap
07-03-2006, 07:56 AM
So are the seasons but saying they are cyclical does not offer a scientific explanation for why there are season. It just notes that there is a pattern. We know the reason for the seasons is caused by the tilt of the axis of the earth causing the sun rays to be less direct in the northern hemisphere for half the year. We have every expectation that if the earth was not tilted the weather would not have the seasonal change we see. (This is seen in the lack of seasonal change in the tropics where the sun rays are relatively direct year round)


Likewise the temperature is dependent upon physical science. This case the energy balance in and out for earth. Too understand whether man or how change in nature can affect temperature you have to know the science not just note that there is something cyclical. That is a dodge for understanding the problem. It points out one's lack of understanding of the science.

ct
07-03-2006, 09:26 AM
Nobody understands global science, and that is the problem. We cannot truly quantify if/when/how much human industrial activities have impacted the cyclical climate of this planet.

All we need is some damn commen sense. It doesn't take a conclusive study to recognize smoking is bad for human lungs. Also doesn't take a conclusive study to recognize pumping huge levels of CO2 into the atmosphere is bad for our global climate cycles. Too much change too fast will radically stress the entire global society. Will it kill us off? I would guess no. Natural consequences, as painful as they may be, will change our behavior, and eventually balance will be restored.

Can we stop potentially painful consequences? Perhaps, but I think acting quickly seems a prudent course of action, considering.

Mr. Laz
07-03-2006, 09:40 AM
is there a down side to cleaning up the enviroment?



is there a down side to not cleaning up the enviroment?

ct
07-03-2006, 10:55 AM
is there a down side to cleaning up the enviroment?



is there a down side to not cleaning up the enviroment?


Yes

Yes

htismaqe
07-03-2006, 03:34 PM
Nobody understands global science, and that is the problem. We cannot truly quantify if/when/how much human industrial activities have impacted the cyclical climate of this planet.

All we need is some damn commen sense. It doesn't take a conclusive study to recognize smoking is bad for human lungs. Also doesn't take a conclusive study to recognize pumping huge levels of CO2 into the atmosphere is bad for our global climate cycles. Too much change too fast will radically stress the entire global society. Will it kill us off? I would guess no. Natural consequences, as painful as they may be, will change our behavior, and eventually balance will be restored.

Can we stop potentially painful consequences? Perhaps, but I think acting quickly seems a prudent course of action, considering.

Excellent post.

Baby Lee
07-03-2006, 03:57 PM
Nobody understands global science, and that is the problem. We cannot truly quantify if/when/how much human industrial activities have impacted the cyclical climate of this planet.

All we need is some damn commen sense. It doesn't take a conclusive study to recognize smoking is bad for human lungs. Also doesn't take a conclusive study to recognize pumping huge levels of CO2 into the atmosphere is bad for our global climate cycles. Too much change too fast will radically stress the entire global society. Will it kill us off? I would guess no. Natural consequences, as painful as they may be, will change our behavior, and eventually balance will be restored.

Can we stop potentially painful consequences? Perhaps, but I think acting quickly seems a prudent course of action, considering.
I wouldn't hold my breath, . . . OR SHOULD I?!?!?!?

ROFL ROFL

patteeu
07-03-2006, 04:41 PM
What price (per gallon of fuel) would you pay to clean your own CO2 footprint?

FringeNC
07-03-2006, 05:09 PM
Nobody understands Also doesn't take a conclusive study to recognize pumping huge levels of CO2 into the atmosphere is bad for our global climate cycles. Too much change too fast will radically stress the entire global society.

Actually, the earth has been in an ice age with an order of magnitude (10X) higher level of carbon dioxide.

It is near unanimous that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Doubling the level of carbon dioxide would cause a small temperature increase of a few degrees. That really isn't disputed much. So where do the gloom and doom stories come from? Well, some climate scientist speculated that there would be positive feedback effects from increased carbon dioxide, and included them in the models that generate the big warming. Problem is that these models can't explain past climates on earth, so why should we expect they can predict the future? And without those multiplier effects, the carbon dioxide increase is harmless. Also, the models get screwy results such as the sea temperature at the equator would be much warmer than today, something that has never been observed. For all the climate changes earth has had, it happens at the higher latitudes. The ocean temperatures stay the same at the equator, or at least they have for hundreds of millions of years.

It could be that the climate scientists are right, but until someone explains to me how we have had periods of warm and cold cimates despite massive amounts more CO2 in the air, I'm going to be a little skeptical, and assume these scientists are just riding the UN funding gravy train. Scare-mongering keeps bureaucrats employed.

banyon
07-03-2006, 05:22 PM
It could be that the climate scientists are right, but until someone explains to me how we have had periods of warm and cold cimates despite massive amounts more CO2 in the air, I'm going to be a little skeptical, and assume these scientists are just riding the UN funding gravy train..

You know if you work for the petroleum companies or other energy concerns, the brown of the gravy train is a lot richer and thicker.

Scare-mongering keeps bureaucrats employed.

I'm sure that the CEO's of Phillip Morris and RJR have muttered and wheezed out these sentiments before too.

morphius
07-03-2006, 05:36 PM
Don't forget that the magnetic pole's are getting weaker as we get closer to the pole's switching, but I'm sure that has no effect on the weather...

alanm
07-03-2006, 07:46 PM
Um, they ignored like 80 years of recorded weather. The furthest "recollection" they mentioned was the 1970's?

CYCLICAL is a word. Look it up.
You can't reason with these people. They like wailing like Chicken Little.
Omaha had a couple of snows 2 years ago where both storms produced over 20+ inches. My Bro in law showed me a pic where he and his sons were on the roof shoveling snow off and they had drifts over 15' on one side of their house. Global warming my ass. :shake:

KC Jones
07-03-2006, 08:19 PM
Don't forget that the magnetic pole's are getting weaker as we get closer to the pole's switching, but I'm sure that has no effect on the weather...

It always freaks me out a bit when people talk about the poles switching. My mother (God rest her soul), had gotten into the idea that sometime during my lifetime the poles would flip and there would be major worldwide disasters, civilization as we know it would fail. A few years back I had a dream that she and I were walking along a railroad track talking about life. I was telling her about my kids and all, and as we walked I noticed on one side of the tracks was a city and on the other a forest. Suddenly the tracks turned into the city and zoomed us into the windows of some massive store. I don't know what was inside, but I knew it was something I had to get. Then my mother turned to me and said, "get ready, the change is coming and you have to be prepared."

:eek:

tiptap
07-03-2006, 08:36 PM
You can't reason with these people. They like wailing like Chicken Little.
Omaha had a couple of snows 2 years ago where both storms produced over 20+ inches. My Bro in law showed me a pic where he and his sons were on the roof shoveling snow off and they had drifts over 15' on one side of their house. Global warming my ass. :shake:

So reason with me. Why is it that there is measured shrinkage of all land glaciers (except the glaciers in Argentina's glacial national park) throughout the world? Why is there shrinkage of the artic ocean ice pack? Why are the ocean temperatures rising? Why is the growing season occurring earlier and lasting longer around the world? Why is the plant life migrating further north?

And all this indication of higher amount of heat in the weather system with world wide measurements that the actual amount of sunlight hitting the ground is less than 50 years ago.

And we know that this effect, Global Dimming, IS human manufactored. We know this because in the aftermath of 9/11 when all the planes where grounded, the temperature high and low swings for a 24 hour period jumped nearly a whole degree, (unheard of before this) and return to the normal range variance once planes started flying. The upshot of this is that jet activity forming clouds way up in the atmosphere reflect and reduces the amount of energy hitting the ground. The actual positive effect of carbon dioxide has been masked by the negative effect of pollution and other cloud seeding activities of man. The effect of carbon dioxide is actually larger. There is no need to claim some escalating effect of carbon dioxide, the linear results more than justify the concern.

Mr. Laz
07-03-2006, 08:46 PM
Yes

Yes
what's the downside with cleaning up the enviroment?

FringeNC
07-03-2006, 09:07 PM
what's the downside with cleaning up the enviroment?

That's a joke, right?

Pitt Gorilla
07-03-2006, 09:36 PM
Omaha had a couple of snows 2 years ago where both storms produced over 20+ inches. My Bro in law showed me a pic where he and his sons were on the roof shoveling snow off and they had drifts over 15' on one side of their house. Global warming my ass. :shake:Ahh, the old "generalize from one example" take.

Mr. Laz
07-04-2006, 11:25 AM
That's a joke, right?
nope ...... enlighten me

FringeNC
07-04-2006, 11:35 AM
nope ...... enlighten me

You must have watched a lot of Captain Planet or something. Firms don't pollute for kicks; pollution is a by-product of industrial production, and reducing pollution is a costly activity. Isn't that obvious?

And the pollution that already exists. Cleaning that up requires resources.

Why in the hell do you think Kyoto didn't garner a single vote in the Senate? Not one.

Mr. Laz
07-04-2006, 11:40 AM
You must have watched a lot of Captain Planet or something. Firms don't pollute for kicks; pollution is a by-product of industrial production, and reducing pollution is a costly activity. Isn't that obvious?

And the pollution that already exists. Cleaning that up requires resources.

Why in the hell do you think Kyoto didn't garner a single vote in the Senate? Not one.
so you're saying the downside is money?


and compare that with the ultimate cost of NOT cleaning it up?



forget global warming .... i'm just talking about the accumulative damage that "crap" is going to cause to human and animal alike.


It's going to get worse too as more and more gets dumped.


ounce of prevention, pound of cure



unless of course you don't think living in a big sewer will cause any general health issues for the human race?!

FringeNC
07-04-2006, 11:41 AM
so you're saying the downside is money?


and compare that with the ultimate cost of NOT cleaning it up?



forget global warming .... i'm just talking about the accumulative damage that "crap" is going to cause.

It's going to get worse too as more and more gets dumped.


ounce of prevention, pound of cure

How much higher gas prices would you be willing to pay to reduce future carbon dioxide emissions? Just asking...

Mr. Laz
07-04-2006, 11:46 AM
How much higher gas prices would you be willing to pay to reduce future carbon dioxide emissions? Just asking...
the price of gas is already way higher than it has to be .... as proven by the record profits of the companies involved.

we pay as much as we have to to get the job done


how about instead of going to war and spending 900 billion dollars to try and stabilize our oil supply we take that money and invest it in alternative energies so that we don't need the Oil supply in the first place.

win/win/win

1. not using oil cleans up the environment
2. not using oil neuters the terrorists in the middle east
3. not going to war saves the lives of 2500 U.S. citizens

FringeNC
07-04-2006, 11:50 AM
the price of gas is already way higher than it has to be .... as proven by the record profits of the companies involved.

we pay as much as we have to to get the job done


how about instead of going to war and spending 900 billion dollars to try and stabilize our oil supply we take that money and invest it in alternative energies so that we don't need the Oil supply in the first place.

win/win/win

1. not using oil cleans up the environment
2. not using oil neuters the terrorists in the middle east
3. not going to war saves the lives of 2500 U.S. citizens

See. You guys are all talk. In theory, you think protecting the ennvironment is great, but when it comes down to affecting your wallet, you duck and run.

Mr. Laz
07-04-2006, 11:59 AM
See. You guys are all talk. In theory, you think protecting the ennvironment is great, but when it comes down to affecting your wallet, you duck and run.
who's ducking and running?

maybe "you guys" should take a reading course ... i said we pay as much as we have to pay.

but i also said that the cost can be diluted a bit by not having Oil companies "raping and pillaging" america's pocket book and choosing to spend the existing money differently.

go bowe
07-04-2006, 12:16 PM
it is an intriguing thought...

to have spent that kind of money on research and development across the board might have produced dramatic discoveries in all kinds of fields, particularly medicene as well as the obvious goal of developing usable alternative energy sources...

it does make you wonder...

FringeNC
07-04-2006, 12:28 PM
who's ducking and running?

maybe "you guys" should take a reading course ... i said we pay as much as we have to pay.

but i also said that the cost can be diluted a bit by not having Oil companies "raping and pillaging" america's pocket book and choosing to spend the existing money differently.

Find me one economist that says oil companies are raping and pillaging America? It's strictly non-serious socialist class-warfare rhetoric that should have died in the 60s. Oil prices are set by the supply and demand in the oil market, not by the big bad oil companies.

You're simply non-serious, and want think there is a boogeyman that you can blame instead of admitting reducing greenhouse gases will require sacrifice, including sacrifices made by YOU.

go bowe
07-04-2006, 02:27 PM
yep. laz is extremely nonserious...

he's downright funny, for sure...

easygoing too...

but definitely nonserious... :) :) :)

patteeu
07-04-2006, 02:37 PM
What price (per gallon of fuel) would you pay to clean your own CO2 footprint?

Anyone who wants to start a war on global warming should ask themselves a question like this. How much are you willing to sacrifice? No one ever seems to talk about the cost of fighting global warming. The discussion is always about the horrors that global warming might create and never about whether the horrors it would take to stop it might be worse.

banyon
07-04-2006, 02:50 PM
What price (per gallon of fuel) would you pay to clean your own CO2 footprint?

Anyone who wants to start a war on global warming should ask themselves a question like this. How much are you willing to sacrifice? No one ever seems to talk about the cost of fighting global warming. The discussion is always about the horrors that global warming might create and never about whether the horrors it would take to stop it might be worse.

:rolleyes:

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=141723&page=4&pp=15&highlight=global+warming

AndChiefs
07-04-2006, 03:00 PM
In a report to Congress last month, the National Academy of Sciences said a broad review of studies indicated that Earth hasn’t been this warm in 400 years, and possibly for 2,000 years or much longer.


Why was it so warm 400 years ago..or 2,000 years ago? Interesting...I guess they shouldn't have been producing so many industrial products back then.

go bowe
07-04-2006, 03:00 PM
What price (per gallon of fuel) would you pay to clean your own CO2 footprint?

Anyone who wants to start a war on global warming should ask themselves a question like this. How much are you willing to sacrifice? No one ever seems to talk about the cost of fighting global warming. The discussion is always about the horrors that global warming might create and never about whether the horrors it would take to stop it might be worse.i can't afford to clean my co2 footprint...

besides, we need to burn more coal, not less, to produce the electricity our whole society and technology depend on...

we can probably conserve in other areas, but i don't see any viable replacement for coal fired generating plants...

StcChief
07-04-2006, 03:03 PM
Past measurements 400 , 2000 years ago are accurate and how were they recorded?

banyon
07-04-2006, 03:04 PM
Past measurements 400 , 2000 years ago are accurate and how were they recorded?


I think most of that data comes from ice core sampling/ drilling/ tree sampling info.

banyon
07-04-2006, 03:08 PM
i can't afford to clean my co2 footprint...

besides, we need to burn more coal, not less, to produce the electricity our whole society and technology depend on...

we can probably conserve in other areas, but i don't see any viable replacement for coal fired generating plants...

?? In Kansas, the Corporation Commission was faced with a clear plan. Create a new coal fired plant (of which we only needed a small contribution from to meet demand) and have it sit around for years with excess capacity, or give more support to the wind generation units that can be added incrementally as demand rises. KC Power& Light, being heavily intertwined with other energy interests, of course picked the new $700 Million coal fired plant.

Baby Lee
07-04-2006, 03:58 PM
Ahh, the old "generalize from one example" take.
Kinda like some mailman who remembers lots of snow in the past?
Or some chick who doesn't use ice cleats much anymore?

Adept Havelock
07-04-2006, 04:12 PM
Kinda like some mailman who remembers lots of snow in the past?
Or some chick who doesn't use ice cleats much anymore?

That's clearly two examples. ROFL

Baby Lee
07-04-2006, 04:19 PM
That's clearly two examples. ROFL
Kinda like some mailman who remembers lots of snow in the past?
Or some chick who doesn't use ice cleats much anymore?
That's clearly a disjunctive. ;)

Adept Havelock
07-04-2006, 04:32 PM
That's clearly a disjunctive. ;)

:redface: ROFL

patteeu
07-04-2006, 11:07 PM
:rolleyes:

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=141723&page=4&pp=15&highlight=global+warming

If that's a link to someone talking about the costs of fighting global warming, I couldn't find it.

banyon
07-04-2006, 11:34 PM
If that's a link to someone talking about the costs of fighting global warming, I couldn't find it.

try post #42, as well as the rest of your and my posts in the thread.

patteeu
07-05-2006, 06:23 AM
try post #42, as well as the rest of your and my posts in the thread.

OK, I stand corrected. On the rare occasion, a small number of people make vague references to the cost of stopping global warming. Is that better?

ct
07-05-2006, 07:47 AM
what's the downside with cleaning up the enviroment?

$$ dude, serious $$

How much higher gas prices would you be willing to pay to reduce future carbon dioxide emissions? Just asking...

The price of gas is nothing towards what is needed. New/clean technologies, infrastructure changes to support, phasing out/in of technologies, lost jobs (maybe new jobs?), not to even begin on the existing crap cleanup.

Take one issue, not talked about nearly as often as the oil/gas debate. Logging. Vegetation breaths CO2, releases O2, balances animate life cycles. How are you gonna stop logging/deforestation (minimize let's say, being realistic), and still supply a comparable (or same) raw material for construction, paper, etc.?

banyon
07-05-2006, 07:55 AM
OK, I stand corrected. On the rare occasion, a small number of people make vague references to the cost of stopping global warming. Is that better?


Much. :)

FringeNC
07-05-2006, 11:07 AM
$$ dude, serious $$



The price of gas is nothing towards what is needed. New/clean technologies, infrastructure changes to support, phasing out/in of technologies, lost jobs (maybe new jobs?), not to even begin on the existing crap cleanup.

Take one issue, not talked about nearly as often as the oil/gas debate. Logging. Vegetation breaths CO2, releases O2, balances animate life cycles. How are you gonna stop logging/deforestation (minimize let's say, being realistic), and still supply a comparable (or same) raw material for construction, paper, etc.?

Is the another joke from a leftist? Seriously, Europe and N.A. are approaching never-before-seen levels of forestation.

Cutting back carbon dioxide emissions has EVERYTHING to do with gas and other carbon taxes. How much a hit to your standard of living are you willing to take to reduce future carbon dioxide levels?

Even if Kyoto with all it's tradeable carbon permits (effectively a carbon tax) would only lower the expected temperature by one tenth of one degree in the climate models. Try about a $20 tax per gallon of gas if you want to actually start reducing carbon dioxide levels (instead of just slightly mitigating the increase).

You lefties are embarrassingly uniformed about what it's going to take.

ct
07-05-2006, 11:38 AM
Is the another joke from a leftist? Seriously, Europe and N.A. are approaching never-before-seen levels of forestation.

Cutting back carbon dioxide emissions has EVERYTHING to do with gas and other carbon taxes. How much a hit to your standard of living are you willing to take to reduce future carbon dioxide levels?

Even if Kyoto with all it's tradeable carbon permits (effectively a carbon tax) would only lower the expected temperature by one tenth of one degree in the climate models. Try about a $20 tax per gallon of gas if you want to actually start reducing carbon dioxide levels (instead of just slightly mitigating the increase).

You lefties are embarrassingly uniformed about what it's going to take.

Thinking this is only a gasoline problem is embarassingly uninformed. That is my point.

FringeNC
07-05-2006, 11:39 AM
Thinking this is only a gasoline problem is embarassingly uninformed. That is my point.

Did you miss the part about the carbon tax, or do you just not know what one is?

patteeu
07-05-2006, 11:49 AM
Thinking this is only a gasoline problem is embarassingly uninformed. That is my point.

Asking how much you'd pay per gallon of fuel to reduce carbon emissions doesn't mean that we think gasoline is the only contributor to the potential problem. It's just a way of focusing on the cost in a personal way. It's way too easy to wave our hands at the abstract concept of global warming and wipe it away with grandiose ideas about stopping deforestation, converting to alternative fuels, and developing emissions cleaning technologies but that leaves out the essential consideration of cost.

Cochise
07-05-2006, 11:58 AM
Asking how much you'd pay per gallon of fuel to reduce carbon emissions doesn't mean that we think gasoline is the only contributor to the potential problem. It's just a way of focusing on the cost in a personal way. It's way too easy to wave our hands at the abstract concept of global warming and wipe it away with grandiose ideas about stopping deforestation, converting to alternative fuels, and developing emissions cleaning technologies but that leaves out the essential consideration of cost.

It's because if you don't take any personal ownership of the problem, you can easily turn it into a "damnit Bush" problem. Someone else is to blame, and someone else should fix it too.

You make yourself feel better by objecting to the situation, without actually having to be part of the solution.

ct
07-05-2006, 12:21 PM
Hmm, I thought I stated it would be very costly, but apparently, if I don't publicly state I will invest my family fortune on gas to save the world, I must not care enough?

Personally, I think the personal cost will byte us much harder with our utility bill, if we are ever to truly change our ways for energy consumption. Gas to run our cars is only part of the problem, and not the biggest problem. Your carbon tax illustration is better (honestly, you started your post with gas, ended with gas, and I didn't even read in b/n, my bad).

patteeu
07-05-2006, 12:38 PM
Hmm, I thought I stated it would be very costly, but apparently, if I don't publicly state I will invest my family fortune on gas to save the world, I must not care enough?

Personally, I think the personal cost will byte us much harder with our utility bill, if we are ever to truly change our ways for energy consumption. Gas to run our cars is only part of the problem, and not the biggest problem. Your carbon tax illustration is better (honestly, you started your post with gas, ended with gas, and I didn't even read in b/n, my bad).

I saw that you mentioned cost, which is why I didn't have anything to say to you until you mischaracterized either FringeNC or my (or both) position.

You are surely right that costs would come in a variety of ways including both fuel prices and utility bills but I don't think it's necessary to list all the potential areas in which cost might manifest itself in order to discuss cost in personal terms.

Kclee
07-05-2006, 01:39 PM
Basically, the biggest problem is that there are too many people. Wars, disease, or natural disasters use to keep the population in check a bit, but now people are too smart for the planets good.

Adept Havelock
07-05-2006, 03:40 PM
Basically, the biggest problem is that there are too many people. Wars, disease, or natural disasters use to keep the population in check a bit, but now people are too smart for the planets good.

Don't worry. With the development of various resistant bacteria from overuse of antibiotics, and the use of giant monocultures in grain production, between one and/or the other it's just a matter of time before the herd is thinned dramatically.

I do hope it holds off till I'm not around to see it.